Time-order errors and standard-position effects in duration discrimination: An experimental study and an analysis by the sensation-weighting model

Studies have shown that the discriminability of successive time intervals depends on the presentation order of the standard (St) and the comparison (Co) stimuli. Also, this order affects the point of subjective equality. The first effect is here called the standard-position effect (SPE); the latter is known as the time-order error. In the present study, we investigated how these two effects vary across interval types and standard durations, using Hellström’s sensation-weighting model to describe the results and relate them to stimulus comparison mechanisms. In Experiment 1, four modes of interval presentation were used, factorially combining interval type (filled, empty) and sensory modality (auditory, visual). For each mode, two presentation orders (St–Co, Co–St) and two standard durations (100 ms, 1,000 ms) were used; half of the participants received correctness feedback, and half of them did not. The interstimulus interval was 900 ms. The SPEs were negative (i.e., a smaller difference limen for St–Co than for Co–St), except for the filled-auditory and empty-visual 100-ms standards, for which a positive effect was obtained. In Experiment 2, duration discrimination was investigated for filled auditory intervals with four standards between 100 and 1,000 ms, an interstimulus interval of 900 ms, and no feedback. Standard duration interacted with presentation order, here yielding SPEs that were negative for standards of 100 and 1,000 ms, but positive for 215 and 464 ms. Our findings indicate that the SPE can be positive as well as negative, depending on the interval type and standard duration, reflecting the relative weighting of the stimulus information, as is described by the sensation-weighting model.

Why do humans make antisaccade errors?

Antisaccade errors are attributed to failure to inhibit the habitual prosaccade. We investigated whether the amount of information about the required response the patient has before the trial begins also contributes to error rate. Participants performed antisaccades in five conditions. The traditional design had two goals on the left and right horizontal meridians. In the second condition, stimulus-goal confusability between trials was eliminated by displacing one goal upward. In the third, hemifield uncertainty was eliminated by placing both goals in the same hemifield. In the fourth, goal uncertainty was eliminated by having only one goal, but interspersed with no-go trials. The fifth condition eliminated all uncertainty by having the same goal on every trial. Antisaccade error rate increased by 2% with each additional source of uncertainty, with the main effect being hemifield information, and a trend for stimulus-goal confusability. A control experiment for the effects of increasing angular separation between targets without changing these types of prior response information showed no effects on latency or error rate. We conclude that other factors besides prosaccade inhibition contribute to antisaccade error rates in traditional designs, possibly by modulating the strength of goal activation.