Download
1 / 18
180 likes | 339 Views
Time Perception in Changing Tempos. Ben Paciorkowski David Phelps. Introduction. How fast is this year passing for everyone? Say fast if fast Say slow if slow Say normal if normal. Background Research.
E N D
Introduction How fast is this year passing for everyone? Say fast if fast Say slow if slow Say normal if normal
Background Research • Research of external auditory stimuli are far from complete (Lewkowicz) yet we live in an ever-increasingly auditory world, full of artificial sounds. A few significant factors: • Likeability of Music (Lopez & Malhorta 1991), • Pitch of Melodies (Crowder & Neath 1995), • Rhythm (Martin 1972; Handel 1989) • Frequency (Yoblick & Salvendy 1970) • and Tempo (Polkosky 2002).
Measuring Time 3 Methods of time estimation • Verbal Estimates - ‘After-the-fact’ • Production - Psychophysical • Reproduction
Tempo Background research employs verbal estimates only (Polkosky 2002). As ticking rate increases so does verbally reported estimations of time such that there is a significant difference between fast and slow tempo. We thought, however, that this difference would not generalize to a psychophysical method in which subjects were focused on counting seconds.
Cadence Effect • We hypothesized that the two tempos would not produce significantly different results, but the silent condition would create variability of estimations due to the CADENCE EFFECT. • When counting by seconds we thought the presence of a tempo would act as an aid towards eliminating variance between individual seconds.
Participants • Male 9 • Female 9 • 18-21 years old • All of them college students
Central Question • What are the effects of Tempo (IV) on Estimation of Time Duration (DV)? • IV levels: slow, fast, silent • DV measurement: error in seconds, or variability of seconds
Procedure • Close eyes and count by seconds • When you think sixty seconds has passed say out loud “NOW,” and keep counting • After 3 “NOWS” we randomly change the musical loop • 3 possible loops (Fast, Slow, Silent) • Stop after 9 “NOWS” (not necessarily 9 minutes)
Estimations of Time • A repeated-measures analysis of variance produced the following three conditions, • Fast (M = 10.8) Slow (M = 10.9) Silence (M = 13.8) The general pattern of the results was in the expected direction but had no significance at p < .05.
A ‘By the way’ Study • A Repeated Measures analysis testing for a main effect of gender on error of time estimation did not find overall significance at a p < .05 for the silence and fast tempo conditions • But on the condition of slow tempo, a significant difference was found such that men (M = 6.9) are more accurate than women (M = 14.8) at p = .04
The Cadence Effect • A paired samples test run for every minute against every other minute found only one instance of significance – between the first silent minute and second silent minute at p = .02 • Is this because production of seconds in the silent condition is subject to more variation?
Limitations • Did not measure for anxiety or discomfort • Some people may be more conditioned to count accurately in their heads (band students for example) • 1 Minute may have been too short a duration to find significance. People are relatively accurate at counting for short intervals. Perhaps try longer intervals • No variance of ages
Discussion • Results showed insignificant results showing that silence had more error than the tempo conditions. • Can’t rely on watches and cell phones for every second of our lives • Must depend on our internal clocks sometime • Audio is just one of the many factors that can affect time perception
