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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Anna L Toscano-Zapién, Daniel Velázquez-López, David N Velázquez-Martínez
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