The Lifespan of Time Intervals in Reference Memory
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
To further explore how memory influences time judgments, we conducted two experiments on the lifespan of temporal representations in memory. Penney et al (2000, Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance 26 1770-1787) reported that the perceived duration of auditorily and visually marked intervals differs only when both marker-type intervals are compared directly. This finding can be explained by a 'memory-mixing' process, whereby the memory trace of previous intervals influences the perception of upcoming ones, which are then added to the memory content. In the experiments discussed here, we manipulated the mixing mode of auditory/visual signal presentations. In experiment 1, signals from the same modality were either grouped by blocks or randomised within blocks. The results showed that the auditory/visual difference decreased but remained present when modalities were grouped by blocks. In experiment 2, we used a line-segmentation task. The results showed that, after a training block was performed in one modality, the perceived duration of signals from the other modality was distorted for at least 30 trials and that the magnitude of the difference decreased as the block went on. The results of both experiments highlight the influence of memory on time judgments, providing empirical support to, and quantitative portrayal of, the memory-mixing process.
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