September 2011
Volume 11, Issue 11
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2011
Synchrony and Temporal Order Judgments For Simple and Complex Stimuli
Author Affiliations
  • Scott Love
    School of Psychology, College of Science and Engineering, University of Glasgow, USA
  • Adam Cheng
    School of Psychology, College of Science and Engineering, University of Glasgow, USA
  • Karin Petrini
    School of Psychology, College of Science and Engineering, University of Glasgow, USA
  • Frank E. Pollick
    School of Psychology, College of Science and Engineering, University of Glasgow, USA
Journal of Vision September 2011, Vol.11, 798. doi:10.1167/11.11.798
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Scott Love, Adam Cheng, Karin Petrini, Frank E. Pollick; Synchrony and Temporal Order Judgments For Simple and Complex Stimuli. Journal of Vision 2011;11(11):798. doi: 10.1167/11.11.798.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

We investigated differences in the point-of-subjective simultaneity (PSS) and temporal integration window (TIW) across audiovisual stimulus type and task (van Eijk et al., 2008). Participants (n = 28) completed two tasks in separate blocks, 1) in synch or out of synch - synchrony judgment task (SJ), 2) visual or auditory first - temporal order judgment task (TOJ). Five stimulus types were used: point-light-drumming (PLD), audiovisual speech (FV), single beep-flash (BF), single beep-flash with constant visual information (BFV), and beep-flash sequence with the timing properties of PLD (BFD). Each was presented at one synchronous and 10 asynchronous levels (5 audio-leading, 5 video-leading). Best-fitting Gaussian curves to the number of synchronous and visual first responses were calculated for SJ and TOJ data, respectively. PSS was derived as the peak of the SJ curve and the 50% point of the TOJ cumulative curve. TIW was taken as the standard deviation of the Gaussian curve for each task. Visual inspection of fits revealed that, 1) no participants managed to do TOJ for BFD stimuli; 2) less than 50% could do TOJ on complex stimuli (FV and PLD); 3) ~90% were able to do TOJ on BF and BFV stimuli; 4) ~85% were able to do SJ for all stimuli. Interestingly, PSS for SJ were all video leading, regardless of stimulus type, while they were all audio leading for TOJ, in line with previous research (Petrini et al., 2010). Using only participants able to do SJ for all stimuli (n = 23) we conducted one-factor ANOVAs on PSS and TIW data. Stimulus type influenced both PSS (F(88,4) = 11.363, p < 0.001) and TIW (F(88,4) = 23.837, p < 0.001). Only four subjects were able to do the TOJ on all stimulus types (excluding BFD). Overall, TOJ is a harder task than SJ; both PSS and TIW differed as a function of stimulus type and tasks.

Economic and Social Research Council. 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×