Visual movement impairs duration discrimination at short intervals.

The classic advantage of audition over vision in time processing has been recently challenged by studies using continuously moving visual stimuli such as bouncing balls. Bouncing balls drive beat-based synchronisation better than static visual stimuli (flashes) and as efficiently as auditory ones (beeps). It is yet unknown how bouncing balls modulate performance in duration perception. Our previous study addressing this was inconclusive: there were no differences among bouncing balls, flashes, and beeps, but this could have been due to the fact that intervals were too long to allow sensitivity to modality (visual vs auditory). In this study, we conducted a first experiment to determine whether shorter intervals elicit cross-stimulus differences. We found that short (mean 157 ms) but not medium (326 ms) intervals made duration perception worse for bouncing balls compared with flashes and beeps. In a second experiment, we investigated whether the lower efficiency of bouncing balls was due to experimental confounds, lack of realism, or movement. We ruled out the experimental confounds and found support for the hypothesis that visual movement-be it continuous or discontinuous-impairs duration perception at short interval lengths. Therefore, unlike beat-based synchronisation, duration perception does not benefit from continuous visual movement, which may even have a detrimental effect at short intervals.

Beat cues facilitate time estimation at longer intervals.

Introduction: Time perception in humans can be relative (beat-based) or absolute (duration-based). Although the classic view in the field points to different neural substrates underlying beat-based vs. duration-based mechanisms, recent neuroimaging evidence provided support to a unified model wherein these two systems overlap. In line with this, previous research demonstrated that internalized beat cues benefit motor reproduction of longer intervals (> 5.5 s) by reducing underestimation, but little is known about this effect on pure perceptual tasks. The present study was designed to investigate whether and how interval estimation is modulated by available beat cues. Methods: To that end, we asked 155 participants to estimate auditory intervals ranging from 500 ms to 10 s, while manipulating the presence of cues before the interval, as well as the reinforcement of these cues by beat-related interference within the interval (vs. beat-unrelated and no interference). Results: Beat cues aided time estimation depending on interval duration: for intervals longer than 5 s, estimation was better in the cue than in the no-cue condition. Specifically, the levels of underestimation decreased in the presence of cues, indicating that beat cues had a facilitating effect on time perception very similar to the one observed previously for time production. Discussion: Interference had no effects, suggesting that this manipulation was not effective. Our findings are consistent with the idea of cooperation between beat- and duration-based systems and suggest that this cooperation is quite similar across production and perception.