The Structure of Sensory Events and the Accuracy of Time Judgments
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
We investigated how does the structure of empty time intervals influence temporal processing. In experiment 1, the intervals to be discriminated were the silent durations marked by two sensory signals, both lasting 10 or 500 ms; these signals were two identical flashes (intramodal: VV), or one visual flash (V) followed by an auditory tone (A) (intermodal: VA). For the range of duration under investigation (standards = 0.2, 0.6, 1, or 1.4 s), the results indicated that both the marker length and sensory mode influenced discrimination, but no interaction between these variables or between one of these variables and standard duration was significant. In experiment 2, we compared, for each of four marker-type conditions (VV, AA, VA, AV; and standard = 1 s), intervals marked by two 10 ms signals with intervals marked by unequal signal length (markers 1 and 2 lasting 10 and 500 ms, or 500 and 10 ms). As in experiment 1, the results revealed significant marker-mode and marker-length effects, but no significant interaction between these variables. Experiment 3 showed that, for the same conditions as in experiment 2, perceived duration is not influenced by marker length and that the variability of interval reproductions does not depend on the perceived duration of intervals. The results are discussed in the light of a single-clock hypothesis: marker-length and marker-mode effects are presented as being non-temporal sources of variability associated mainly with sensory and memory processes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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