Attentional Mechanisms during the Performance of a Subsecond Timing Task.
There is evidence that timing processes in the suprasecond scale are modulated by attentional mechanisms; in addition, some studies have shown that attentional mechanisms also affect timing in the subsecond scale. Our aim was to study eye movements and pupil diameter during a temporal bisection task...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2016-01-01
|
Series: | PLoS ONE |
Online Access: | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4965134?pdf=render |
id |
doaj-4a8bd39c8ed249df8a49fced314485a3 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-4a8bd39c8ed249df8a49fced314485a32020-11-25T01:02:44ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032016-01-01117e015850810.1371/journal.pone.0158508Attentional Mechanisms during the Performance of a Subsecond Timing Task.Anna L Toscano-ZapiénDaniel Velázquez-LópezDavid N Velázquez-MartínezThere is evidence that timing processes in the suprasecond scale are modulated by attentional mechanisms; in addition, some studies have shown that attentional mechanisms also affect timing in the subsecond scale. Our aim was to study eye movements and pupil diameter during a temporal bisection task in the subsecond range. Subjects were trained to discriminate anchor intervals of 200 or 800 msec, and were then confronted with intermediate durations. Eye movements revealed that subjects used different cognitive strategies during the bisection timing task. When the stimulus to be timed appeared randomly at a central or 4 peripheral positions on a screen, some subjects choose to maintain their gaze toward the central area while other followed the peripheral placement of the stimulus; some others subjects used both strategies. The time of subjective equality did not differ between subjects who employed different attentional mechanisms. However, differences emerged in the timing variance and attentional indexes (time taken to initial fixation, latency to respond, pupil dilatation and duration and number of fixations to stimulus areas). Timing in the subsecond range seems invariant despite the use of different attentional strategies. Future research should determine whether the selection of attentional mechanisms is related to particular timing tasks or instructions or whether it represents idiosyncratic cognitive "styles".http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4965134?pdf=render |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Anna L Toscano-Zapién Daniel Velázquez-López David N Velázquez-Martínez |
spellingShingle |
Anna L Toscano-Zapién Daniel Velázquez-López David N Velázquez-Martínez Attentional Mechanisms during the Performance of a Subsecond Timing Task. PLoS ONE |
author_facet |
Anna L Toscano-Zapién Daniel Velázquez-López David N Velázquez-Martínez |
author_sort |
Anna L Toscano-Zapién |
title |
Attentional Mechanisms during the Performance of a Subsecond Timing Task. |
title_short |
Attentional Mechanisms during the Performance of a Subsecond Timing Task. |
title_full |
Attentional Mechanisms during the Performance of a Subsecond Timing Task. |
title_fullStr |
Attentional Mechanisms during the Performance of a Subsecond Timing Task. |
title_full_unstemmed |
Attentional Mechanisms during the Performance of a Subsecond Timing Task. |
title_sort |
attentional mechanisms during the performance of a subsecond timing task. |
publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
series |
PLoS ONE |
issn |
1932-6203 |
publishDate |
2016-01-01 |
description |
There is evidence that timing processes in the suprasecond scale are modulated by attentional mechanisms; in addition, some studies have shown that attentional mechanisms also affect timing in the subsecond scale. Our aim was to study eye movements and pupil diameter during a temporal bisection task in the subsecond range. Subjects were trained to discriminate anchor intervals of 200 or 800 msec, and were then confronted with intermediate durations. Eye movements revealed that subjects used different cognitive strategies during the bisection timing task. When the stimulus to be timed appeared randomly at a central or 4 peripheral positions on a screen, some subjects choose to maintain their gaze toward the central area while other followed the peripheral placement of the stimulus; some others subjects used both strategies. The time of subjective equality did not differ between subjects who employed different attentional mechanisms. However, differences emerged in the timing variance and attentional indexes (time taken to initial fixation, latency to respond, pupil dilatation and duration and number of fixations to stimulus areas). Timing in the subsecond range seems invariant despite the use of different attentional strategies. Future research should determine whether the selection of attentional mechanisms is related to particular timing tasks or instructions or whether it represents idiosyncratic cognitive "styles". |
url |
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4965134?pdf=render |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT annaltoscanozapien attentionalmechanismsduringtheperformanceofasubsecondtimingtask AT danielvelazquezlopez attentionalmechanismsduringtheperformanceofasubsecondtimingtask AT davidnvelazquezmartinez attentionalmechanismsduringtheperformanceofasubsecondtimingtask |
_version_ |
1725203923809075200 |