Differences in the temporal processing between identification and categorization of durations: A behavioral and ERP study.

This study examined how different forms of decision-making modulate time perception. Participants performed temporal bisection and generalization tasks, requiring them to either categorize a stimulus duration as more similar to short or long standards (bisection), or identify whether or not a duration was the same as a previously-presented standard (generalization). They responded faster in the bisection task than in the generalization one for long durations. This behavioral effect was accompanied by modulation of event-related potentials (ERPs). More specifically, between 500 ms and 600 ms after stimulus offset, a late positive component (LPC), appearing in the centro-parietal region, showed lower amplitude in the bisection task than in the generalization one, for long durations, mirroring the behavioral result. Before (200-500 ms) and after (600-800 ms) this window, the amplitude of the LPC was globally larger in the generalization paradigm, independently of the presented duration. Finally, the LPC amplitude was higher for long durations than for shorter ones at the beginning of the component (between 200 and 300 ms after stimulus extinction) and was then higher for short durations than for longer ones (between 300 and 600 ms after offset), indicating that the decision about the former stimuli was made earlier than for the latter ones. Taken together, these results indicate that the categorization of durations engages fewer cognitive resources than their identification.

Making decisions about time: event-related potentials and judgements about the equality of durations.

Participants were exposed to a temporal generalization task where the duration of a small visual stimulus was judged. People received a 600ms standard duration, then had to judge whether other durations (longer than, shorter than, or equal to the standard) were or were not the standard (making a YES or NO response). In different experimental conditions, the spacing of non-standard durations around the standard was 150ms (Easy condition), or 75ms (Difficult condition), so the two conditions involved some judgements made with the same stimuli (450, 600, and 750ms). The experiment thus compared judgements of the same physical stimuli, when the basis of the judgement was the same, thus avoiding some problems of control that have been present in earlier electrophysiological studies of time judgements. As in previous work, fewer YES responses occurred in the Difficult condition and the 450ms duration was less confused with the 600ms standard than the 750ms one was. Computer modelling suggested that this (fewer YES responses) was due to a decrease in the decision threshold for the YES judgement. The electrophysiological results showed a distinction between the Easy and Difficult conditions observable by a change in the LCPt (Late Positive Component of Timing) measured after the stimulus presentations and by a change in the P1, the CNV (Contingent Negative Variation), and its positive counterpart during the presentation of the stimulus, which were larger when the discrimination was difficult. Our results therefore suggest that the increase in the difficulty of the generalization task not only changes decision processes but also alters attentional mechanisms. They also reveal that the decision does not seem to involve a unitary mechanism but depends on a group of sub-processes, notably attentional mechanisms which are altered from the moment of presentation of the stimulus.