IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0054798.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Psychophysical Investigation of Differences between Synchrony and Temporal Order Judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Scott A Love
  • Karin Petrini
  • Adam Cheng
  • Frank E Pollick

Abstract

Background: Synchrony judgments involve deciding whether cues to an event are in synch or out of synch, while temporal order judgments involve deciding which of the cues came first. When the cues come from different sensory modalities these judgments can be used to investigate multisensory integration in the temporal domain. However, evidence indicates that that these two tasks should not be used interchangeably as it is unlikely that they measure the same perceptual mechanism. The current experiment further explores this issue across a variety of different audiovisual stimulus types. Methodology/Principal Findings: Participants were presented with 5 audiovisual stimulus types, each at 11 parametrically manipulated levels of cue asynchrony. During separate blocks, participants had to make synchrony judgments or temporal order judgments. For some stimulus types many participants were unable to successfully make temporal order judgments, but they were able to make synchrony judgments. The mean points of subjective simultaneity for synchrony judgments were all video-leading, while those for temporal order judgments were all audio-leading. In the within participants analyses no correlation was found across the two tasks for either the point of subjective simultaneity or the temporal integration window. Conclusions: Stimulus type influenced how the two tasks differed; nevertheless, consistent differences were found between the two tasks regardless of stimulus type. Therefore, in line with previous work, we conclude that synchrony and temporal order judgments are supported by different perceptual mechanisms and should not be interpreted as being representative of the same perceptual process.

Suggested Citation

  • Scott A Love & Karin Petrini & Adam Cheng & Frank E Pollick, 2013. "A Psychophysical Investigation of Differences between Synchrony and Temporal Order Judgments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0054798
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054798
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0054798
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0054798&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0054798?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sophie Smit & Anina N Rich & Regine Zopf, 2019. "Visual body form and orientation cues do not modulate visuo-tactile temporal integration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Jean-Rémy Martin & Anne Kösem & Virginie van Wassenhove, 2015. "Hysteresis in Audiovisual Synchrony Perception," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.
    3. Renan Schiavolin Recio & André Mascioli Cravo & Raphael Yokoingawa de Camargo & Virginie van Wassenhove, 2019. "Dissociating the sequential dependency of subjective temporal order from subjective simultaneity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-10, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0054798. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.