Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Hinze Hogendoorn

Publications and source records attributed to Hinze Hogendoorn.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Time dilation in dynamic visual display.

How does the brain estimate time? This old question has led to many biological and psychological models of time perception (R. A. Block, 1989; P. Fraisse, 1963; J. Gibbon, 1977; D. L. I. Zakay, 1989). Because time cannot be directly measured at a given moment, it has been proposed that the brain estimates time based on the number of changes in an event (S. W. Brown, 1995; P. Fraisse, 1963; W. D. Poynter, 1989). Consistent with this idea, dynamic visual stimuli are known to lengthen perceived time (J. F. Brown, 1931; S. Goldstone & W. T. Lhamon, 1974; W. T. Lhamon & S. Goldstone, 1974, C. O. Z. Roelofs & W. P. C. Zeeman, 1951). However, the kind of information that constitutes the basis for time perception remains unresolved. Here, we show that the temporal frequency of a stimulus serves as the "clock" for perceived duration. Other aspects of changes, such as speed or coherence, were found to be inconsequential. Time dilation saturated at a temporal frequency of 4-8 Hz. These results suggest that the clock governing perceived time has its basis at early processing stages. The possible links between models of time perception and neurophysiological functions of early visual areas are discussed.

Acceleration↗

The speed of visual attention: what time is it?

The time course of visual attention has been studied using a number of experimental designs. Here, we present a refined version of a technique first used by Wundt more than a century ago and demonstrate it as an effective method to measure the speed of visual attention. The method generates precise and robust data quickly and is flexible enough to be adapted into a variety of established paradigms. In the experiment, participants view an array of moving clocks and report the time on a target clock, which was indicated by a peripheral or central cue. We found latencies of around 140 ms when the target was cued peripherally and latencies of around 240 ms when the target was cued centrally. These values are in good agreement with previous literature and support the validity of the technique as a way to measure the speed of visual attention.

Attention↗