Expectation expands subjective duration for repeated stimuli by altering perception.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repeated stimuli are generally perceived to be shorter in duration than novel stimuli. Matthews (2015), however, demonstrated that when repetition is predictable, expectations of repetition may expand subjective duration for repeated stimuli. Although this effect is hypothesised to be perceptual, this has yet to be empirically established. The present study, therefore, examined perceptual and decisional factors in the repetition effect by using psychophysical methods while varying probabilities of repetition, in addition to replicating Matthews' original paradigm. Using faces with neutral expressions, 60 participants completed 2 judgment tasks, indicating whether a comparison stimulus was longer or shorter in duration than a standard stimulus preceding it. Comparison stimuli were presented for the same duration as the 500-ms standard in the replication task and for 1 of 7 durations (from 200-1,250 ms) in the crucial extension task, allowing for examination of sensitivity and bias. No evidence of bias was observed, but modulating participants' expectations of repetition affected perception, such that discrimination was more difficult under high than low repetition conditions. Overall, participants were more likely to judge stimuli that met expectations as longer, regardless of whether the expectation was repetition or novelty. Implications for models of repetition, context effects, and time estimation are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".