Duration Discrimination in Crossmodal Sequences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four duration-discrimination experiments were carried out to compare crossmodal and unimodal timing conditions. For all experiments, participants were presented with two sequences, each consisting of 1 or 4 time intervals (marked by 2 or 5 signals), and asked to indicate whether the interval(s) of the second sequence was (were) shorter or longer than the interval(s) of the first. Markers in the first and second sequences were, respectively, tones and flashes (experiment 1), flashes and tones (experiment 2), both flashes (experiment 3), and both tones (experiment 4). In all modality conditions, except when using only tones (experiment 4), increasing the number of repetitions of the variable interval reduced duration-discrimination thresholds, independently of whether the fixed interval was presented first or second within the sequence pair. Moreover, judgments about sequence timing were best for tones-tones sequence pairs, worst for flashes-flashes sequence pairs, and intermediate for crossmodal (flashes-tones or tones-flashes) sequences. Finally, presenting a fixed interval in the first sequence resulted in better discrimination than presenting a variable interval in the first sequence. Implications for theories of timing are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it