Research Article: The duration aftereffect does not reflect adaptation to perceived duration

Date Published: March 4, 2019

Publisher: Public Library of Science

Author(s): Jim Maarseveen, Chris L. E. Paffen, Frans A. J. Verstraten, Hinze Hogendoorn, Stefan Glasauer.

http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213163

Abstract

Recent studies have provided evidence for a role of duration-tuned channels in the encoding of duration. Duration encoding in these channels is thought to reflect the time between responses to the onset and offset of an event. This notion is in apparent conflict with studies that demonstrate that the perceived duration of an event can vary independently from the time separating its perceived onset and offset. Instead, these studies suggest that duration encoding is sensitive to other temporal aspects of a sensory event. In the current study, we investigated whether duration-tuned channels encode duration based on the time between the on- and offset of an event (onset-offset duration), or if they encode a duration corresponding to the perceived duration of that event. We used a duration illusion to dissociate onset-offset duration and perceived duration and measured whether repeated exposure to illusion-inducing stimuli caused adaptation to the onset-offset duration or the perceived duration of these illusion-inducing stimuli. We report clear evidence for adaptation to the onset-offset duration of illusion-inducing stimuli. This finding supports the notion that duration-tuned mechanisms respond to the time between the onset and offset of an event, without necessarily reflecting the duration perceived, and eventually reported by the participant. Implications for the duration channel model and the mechanisms underlying duration illusions are discussed.

Partial Text

Recently, it has been proposed that duration-tuned mechanisms underlie the encoding of duration [1,2]. According to this idea, the brain contains groups of duration-tuned neurons that respond selectively to specific ranges of durations. Summation of the population response of these groups of duration-tuned bandpass-neurons (or channels) allows for implicit temporal signals to be transformed into an explicit code for duration that is both accurate and reliable. This explicit signal can then be stored, manipulated, and used to guide subsequent behavior [1].

Average PSEs for each of the adaptation conditions can be found in Fig 2. The depicted error bars represent within-subject standard errors calculated using per-subject normalization of the data [33,34]. Error bars depicting the standard of the mean illustrate both the between-subject and within-subject variance in a dataset. These depictions describe the total variance in the data and can help indicated the variability across subjects. However, in a design focused on within-subject differences, error-bars depicting the standard error of the mean have little informational value about the outcome of the within-subject analyses [33]. The within-subject standard errors used here reflect only the within-subject variability making them more predictive of the outcome of the analyses of the within-subject effects that were reported here.

In this study we addressed the apparent contradiction between the proposal that duration-tuned channels encode duration based on the time between the responses to the onset and offset of an event, and the fact that our perception of duration can be dissociated from this onset-offset duration of an event. To this end, we adapted participants to an illusion-inducing stimulus that is known to cause shifts in the perceived duration of an event, without affecting its perceived onset and offset [24]. Participants adapted to one of three types of stimuli: an illusion-inducing rotating radial grating, a static grating matched to the onset-offset duration of the illusion-inducing stimulus, and a static grating matched to the perceived duration of the illusion-inducing stimulus. We measured the resulting DAE and found that the DAE for illusion-inducing stimuli did not differ from the DAE for the onset-offset matched stimuli but did differ from the DAE for the perceptually matched stimuli. In other words, participants adapted to the onset-offset duration, and not to a duration corresponding to the perceived duration of the illusion-inducing stimulus. This result supports the proposal that duration channels are sensitive to the temporal distance between the onset and offset responses that result from a sensory event; possibly via neurons that show onset-dependent offset responses [1]. We conclude that channel-based duration encoding is based on the temporal distance between the onset and offset of an event and does not necessarily corresponds to the perceived duration of that same event.

 

Source:

http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213163

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.