EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

2009, 21 (1), 18
34

Is time reproduction sensitive to sensory modalities?

Marion Noulhiane
Laboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives et d’Imagerie Cérébrale, Paris,
and Université Charles de Gaulle Lille 3, Neuropsychologie et Cognition
Auditive, Villeneuve d’Ascq, France

Viviane Pouthas
Laboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives et d’Imagerie Cérébrale, Paris,
France

Séverine Samson
Université Charles de Gaulle Lille 3, Neuropsychologie et Cognition
Auditive, Villeneuve d’Ascq, France

To examine the influence of sensory modality on time reproduction, we investigated

the location of the indifference interval in the visual and auditory modalities with
two ranges of duration (1
5.5 s and 1
10 s). Results showed that in the visual
modality, the location of the indifference interval did not shift as a function of
duration range and over trials: It was located around 3 s. In the auditory modality,
it varied with the duration range: It was also located around 3 s for the first trials
and progressively shifted to the mean of both tested ranges. A common mechanism
was thus implied in the two modalities, intervals below and above 3 s being
differentially processed but with auditory durations, a dynamic process super-
imposed to this supramodal mechanism. These explanations based on the
differential properties of sensory memories and on learning mechanisms taking
place during the task are discussed in light of time perception models.

Correspondence should be addressed to Séverine Samson, Université Charles de Gaulle Lille 3,

JE 2497 Neuropsychologie et Cognition Auditive, Domaine universitaire du ‘‘Pont de Bois’’, rue du
Barreau*BP 60149, 59653 Villeneuve d’Ascq Cedex, France. E-mail: severine.samson@univ-
lille3.fr
The authors are grateful to Laurent Hugueville for his help on protocol design and to
Simone Dalla Bella and to Jay Dowling for their helpful comments on previous version of the
manuscript. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions. This study was
supported by the ACI ‘‘Neurosciences Intégratives et Computationnelles’’ of the French
Ministry of Research (grant no. 022399). Marion Noulhiane was funded by a PhD fellowship
from the Regional Council of Nord-Pas-de-Calais (France) and by the French League Against
Epilepsy (Novartis).
# 2008 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
http://www.psypress.com/ecp DOI: 10.1080/09541440701825981
 TIME REPRODUCTION AND SENSORY MODALITIES 19

Temporal aspects of sensory information play a fundamental role in human

behaviour and cognition. Studies on human subjective time indicate that the
judgement of stimulus duration is not exclusively determined by objective
duration but may also depend on other types of information that concern
the stimulus itself or the context of its presentation. To better understand the
factors that may play a role in timing intervals, we examined the effect of
sensory modality and controlled the context of presentation, i.e., the range
of standard durations to be reproduced.
Several lines of evidence suggest that sensory modality affects perceived
duration. More specifically, it has been generally reported that auditory
stimuli are judged longer and with greater precision than visual stimuli of
physically equal duration (e.g., Collier & Logan, 2000; Glenberg, Mann,
Altman, Forman, & Procise, 1989; Goldstone & Goldfarb, 1964; Gold-
stone & Lhamon, 1974; Rousseau & Rousseau, 1996; Sebel & Wilsoncroft,
1983; Wearden, Edwards, Fakhri, & Percival, 1998). Such findings have
classically been interpreted in the theoretical framework of the scalar
expectancy theory (Gibbon, Church, & Meck, 1984) in which time
processing is defined in three separate stages. The first one is the clock
stage, which consists in a pacemaker emitting pulses that are sent to an
accumulator by closing a switch. Duration judgements depend on the pulse
number, which increases as time elapses. The two other stages translate
clock readings into behaviour: The memory stage enables the transient
(working memory) and permanent (reference memory) storage of the
outcome from the accumulator and the decision stage compares remem-
bered durations previously stored in memory with the current perceived
duration. According to this theory, the modality effect in perceived
duration is mainly located at the clock stage. Thus, one proposed
explanation is that the pacemaker has a faster rate for auditory than for
visual signals (Droit-Volet, Tourret, & Wearden, 2004; Wearden
et al., 1998; Wearden, Todd, & Jones, 2006). An alternative explanation
is that the switch opens and closes less frequently for auditory than for
visual signals (Droit-Volet, Meck, & Penney, 2007; Penney, Gibbon, &
Meck, 2000). As a consequence, in both cases a greater number of pulses
should be accumulated with sounds than with lights and an auditory signal
will seem longer than an equivalent visual duration. Nevertheless, the
modality effect on perceived duration has not been systematically demon-
strated and some studies failed to report it (e.g., Brown & Hitchcock, 1965;
Hawkes, Bailey, & Warm, 1961; Kagerer, Wittmann, Szelag, & Steinbuchel,
2002; and for a thorough discussion of the modality differences in interval
timing, see Penney, 2003). Such discrepancies among studies reported in
the literature suggest that the effect of sensory modality on temporal
judgements deserves further investigations.
20 NOULHIANE, POUTHAS, SAMSON

Another general finding reported in the time domain concerns the

accuracy of temporal performance or the constant error (CE), which is
measured by subtracting the mean time estimation from the standard
duration. It has been classically demonstrated that short intervals tend to
produce positive CEs, indicating that they are overestimated, whereas long
intervals tend to produce negative CEs, showing that they are under-
estimated (Vierordt, 1868; Woodrow, 1930, 1951; Woodworth & Schlosberg,
1954). In between these two types of responses, an intermediate duration
(i.e., the indifference interval) is accurately estimated, producing a null CE
consistent with Vierordt’s law (Vierordt, 1868).
Moreover, evidence of various temporal processes for different duration
ranges has often been reported in the literature. Nonetheless, there is
currently no agreement on the critical duration separating these processes:
around 1 s for the separation between automatic and controlled processing
(Lewis & Miall, 2003); around 2 s when participants used counting or not
(Grondin, 2001). In this study, we focused on the distinction proposed by
Fraisse (1984) between perception of duration and estimation of duration,
with the limit between these two processes being located at around 3 s. Such
a conception has been further developed by Pöppel (1997, 2004), who
described a window of temporal integration lasting approximately 3 s that
integrates sensory inputs into a unified percept (for a review, see Wittmann,
1999). Support for such a binding operation comes from studies that used
temporal reproduction of stimuli with different standard durations. Up to
3 s, stimuli are reproduced almost veridically (or slightly overreproduced
probably due to the reaction time component), whereas stimuli superior to
3 s are underreproduced. In coherence with this line of research, Elbert,
Ulrich, Rockstroh, and Lutzenberger (1991) reported electrophysiological
evidence in event-related potentials (ERPs) study using visual durations
from 1 to 8 s. Their ERP results suggested that intervals shorter than 3
4 s
might evoke a processing mode that is qualitatively different from the one
involved in temporal processing of intervals exceeding 4 s. The authors also
showed that durations inferior to 3 s were accurately reproduced, whereas
durations superior to 3 s were underestimated, supporting again two distinct
timing mechanisms. More recently, Gibbons and Rammsayer (2004) tried to
replicate the ERP results in the auditory modality using temporal
reproduction of three standard durations (2, 4, and 6 s). These authors
did not obtain changes in behavioural data nor in slow-wave components as
a function of target duration. Similarly, Fortin and Couture (2002) were
unable to distinguish separate timing processes by manipulating working
memory load during reproduction of auditory durations ranging from 1.85
to 6.45 s. These two latter studies did not confirm the existence of two
separate temporal processes as a function of duration. Since these two
studies used auditory signals, whereas Elbert et al.’s study involved visual
 TIME REPRODUCTION AND SENSORY MODALITIES 21

signals, it is tempting to suggest that the discrepancy between results might

be, at least in part, attributed to sensory modality.
Studies directly comparing reproduction of visual and auditory durations
obtained data in favour of two separate temporal processes as a function of
duration, with an indifference interval located around 3 s. Nevertheless, they
showed how modality of the signals may interact in different ways with time
reproduction. For instance, Kagerer et al. (2002) failed to report an effect of
modality on reproduction of 1
5.5 s durations. Conversely, Szelag,
Kowalska, Rymarczyk, and Poppel (2002) and Ulbrich, Churan, Fink,
and Wittmann (2007) demonstrated an effect of sensory modality on timing
processes, but its expression was completely different in the two cases. In the
former investigation (Szelag et al., 2002), examining children using two
different ranges of durations (1
3 s and 1
5.5 s), auditory signals of 1 and 2 s
were more accurately reproduced than visual ones, whereas there was no
modality effect for longer durations (which, however, were underestimated).
In this study, the authors attributed the accuracy difference obtained in short
durations to the features of the stimuli rather than to their modality. They
suggested that the auditory stimuli, presented through headphones, were
better attended than the visual stimuli presented at 1.7 m from the
participant. In the second study (Ulbrich et al., 2007), the results revealed
no effect of modality at the 1 and 2 s durations, but the longer intervals were
more accurately reproduced in the auditory than in the visual modality. By
controlling for the working memory capacity of the participants who were
simultaneously involved in a nontemporal concurrent task, these researchers
showed that underestimation was more pronounced in the time reproduction
task for subjects with low (vs. high) working memory span. This finding
suggests a relation between transient memory storage and duration
estimation that extends beyond the critical value of 2
3 s. A factor analysis
indicated, in addition, that mean reproduced intervals of long durations
(from 3 to 5 s) load on two modality-specific factors, whereas shorter
intervals (1
2 s) load on one common factor for both modalities, providing
further evidence for distinct mechanisms involved in temporal processing for
durations below and above 3 s. All these findings obtained in studies
comparing reproduction of auditory and visual durations suggest that
reproduction of time intervals might interact with the sensory modality of
the signals. As emphasised by these authors, a constant limit around 3 s is
usually observed in the reproduction paradigm. However, in most studies
there is a confounding factor such that this limit overlaps with the mean of
the studied range, reflecting the central mean tendency explained by
Vierordt’s (1868) law. Although several lines of evidence suggest that short
and long durations are differently processed, it remains difficult to determine
whether this limit corresponds to a constant value as suggested by Fraisse
22 NOULHIANE, POUTHAS, SAMSON

(1984), or to the indifference interval that varies as a function of duration

range as defined by Vierordt.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of modality on the
indifference interval. More specifically, we aimed to determine if the
mechanism underlying time reproduction is supramodal or modality
specific. For this purpose, we examined the accuracy of temporal perfor-
mance. We used two ranges of durations leading to different central mean
tendency values to determine whether or not the indifference interval reflects
a constant interval duration or if it corresponds to a flexible value
determined by the mean central tendency. By conjointly manipulating the
sensory modality (auditory or visual modality) and the width of the duration
ranges (from 1 to 5.5 s and from 1 to 10 s), we tested duration reproduction
with 10 standard intervals. On the basis of previously reported timing
studies, we can predict that the indifference interval (null constant error)
would be systematically located around 3 s, being independent of the range
of durations and of the modality of the signals. Alternatively, we could also
hypothesise that the range of durations would influence the location of the
indifference interval, reflecting the mean central tendency, and that it might
interact with effect of modality.

METHOD
Participants
Twenty-eight volunteers’ undergraduate and graduate students (14 women,
14 men, mean age9SD26.892.16 years) at the laboratory of LENA
CNRS UPR 640 and the University of Lille 3 participated in this study.

Materials
The experiment was conducted using an IBM compatible computer with a
sound card for the presentation of the auditory stimuli and a module
controlling a shutter for the presentation of the visual stimuli. A specifically
designed program controlled both the presentation of the standard durations
and the recording of the subjects’ responses (reproduced durations) with an
accuracy of 90.5 ms. The auditory stimulus was a 440 Hz sinusoidal tone
played binaurally through headphones at a sound pressure level of
approximately 70 dB. The visual stimulus was a grey 1010 cm square of
uniform luminance, projected at the centre of the screen with a black
background at a distance of 0.5 m in front of the participants.
 TIME REPRODUCTION AND SENSORY MODALITIES 23

Procedure and design

Two consecutive sessions (visual and auditory) using 10 standard durations
were presented to all the participants. The order of presentation of the
sessions was counterbalanced across the participants. Each standard
duration was randomly presented 10 times within each session. The trials
were organised in blocks of 10, with each standard occurring once in each
block. This design resulted in 100 trials per modality. In the experiment with
the narrow range of durations, 14 participants (7 females and 7 males) were
tested with standard durations ranging from 1 to 5.5 s in steps of 0.5 s, giving
10 different durations. In the experiment with wide range of durations, 14
participants were tested with durations ranging from 1 to 10 s in steps of 1 s,
also giving 10 different durations.
Before starting each session, participants were given five training trials.
Each trial started with the presentation of a randomly selected standard
duration. During the presentation phase, the participants were instructed
to pay attention to the stimulus duration in order to reproduce it. They
were advised to avoid chronometric counting strategies. The coefficients of
variation obtained in the two ranges of durations (see Table 1) revealed
that subjects were quite variable in their reproductions of duration
(between 0.12 and 0.34). According to Wearden (1991), these high values
of the coefficients of variation suggest that participants did not use
chronometric counting. The presentation of the standard duration was
followed by a second stimulus, similar to the standard one, after a random
interval of 2
3 s. The participant was asked to press the spacebar when he/
she considered that the standard duration had elapsed. The reproduced
duration was recorded. The next trial was presented after a random delay
of 2
3 s.

Data analysis
For both visual and auditory modalities, mean reproduced duration
and its standard deviation were computed separately for each participant
and for each standard duration. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were
carried out on the mean time reproduction and on the coefficients of
variation. To specify the location of the indifference interval, reproduc-
tions were converted into absolute error scores by subtracting the standard
duration from the mean reproduced duration which corresponded to the
constant error (CE). A CE value equal to 0 corresponds to an exact
reproduction, whereas CEs larger than 0 reflect overreproduction and
CEs smaller than 0 indicate underreproduction. The constant error score
(CE) of 10 trials per standard duration was individually computed for
24 NOULHIANE, POUTHAS, SAMSON

TABLE 1
Mean time reproduction and coefficient of variation for visual and auditory intervals
Mean reproduced (9SD) Coefficient variation (9SD)

Duration (ms) Visual Auditory Visual Auditory

1 to 5.5 s
1000 1379 (317) 1660 (121) 0.32 (0.06) 0.13 (0.04)
1500 1602 (408) 2127 (269) 0.27 (0.07) 0.14 (0.04)
2000 2271 (306) 2501 (301) 0.24 (0.08) 0.18 (0.07)
2500 2615 (482) 2895 (425) 0.24 (0.09) 0.17 (0.03)
3000 3057 (403) 3129 (313) 0.17 (0.04) 0.15 (0.05)
3500 3282 (539) 3319 (370) 0.15 (0.05) 0.14 (0.06)
4000 3781 (352) 3739 (391) 0.16 (0.05) 0.15 (0.05)
4500 4209 (493) 4172 (401) 0.15 (0.03) 0.13 (0.04)
5000 4673 (360) 4628 (421) 0.16 (0.05) 0.14 (0.04)
5500 4850 (604) 4863 (567) 0.16 (0.03) 0.12 (0.04)
1 to 10 s
1000 1270 (291) 1621 (244) 0.34 (0.13) 0.16 (0.06)
2000 2190 (348) 2624 (410) 0.26 (0.11) 0.19 (0.08)
3000 3067 (628) 3550 (689) 0.25 (0.10) 0.21 (0.11)
4000 3921 (642) 4408 (486) 0.22 (0.09) 0.17 (0.07)
5000 4793 (491) 5118 (398) 0.19 (0.08) 0.16 (0.07)
6000 5667 (640) 5829 (791) 0.19 (0.06) 0.16 (0.06)
7000 6232 (704) 6731 (992) 0.19 (0.09) 0.17 (0.06)
8000 6865 (859) 7088 (1001) 0.18 (0.07) 0.15 (0.06)
9000 7557 (789) 7995 (1159) 0.19 (0.07) 0.19 (0.14)
10000 8541 (726) 8476 (1208) 0.21 (0.07) 0.19 (0.09)

both visual and auditory conditions. To determine the time value that
produced the indifference interval (CE0), a regression line was fitted
through the CE scores obtained for the standard durations in both visual
and auditory modalities for each participant in the two ranges of
durations (narrow vs. wide). This time value was given by the intersection
of the regression line with the abscissa (CE0). ANOVAs were carried
out on these values.

RESULTS
A two-way analysis of variance with repeated measures (modality and
duration) was carried out on the mean time reproduction for the 1
5.5 s and
for the 1
10 s range of duration. Partial eta-squared (/h2p SS effect/SS
effectSS error) was computed to estimate the effect size. For the
two ranges of durations, the results revealed an effect of duration, for
1
5.5 s, F(9, 117)610.16, h2p 0.97, pB.001, for 1
10 s, F(9, 117)384.01,
h2p 0.96, pB.001, and of modality, for 1
5.5 s, F(1, 13)4.68, h2p 0.26,
 TIME REPRODUCTION AND SENSORY MODALITIES 25

pB.05, for 1
10 s, F(1, 13)8.82, h2p 0.40, pB.05, and a Duration
Modality interaction, for 1
5.5 s, F(9, 117)1.97, h2p 0.14, pB.05, for
1
10 s, F(9, 117)2.04, h2p 0.13, pB.05. Planned comparisons showed
that auditory durations were judged longer than visual ones but this
modality effect concerned durations inferior to 3 s (psB.05) for the 1
5.5
s and durations inferior to 5 s for the 1
10 s (psB.05) duration range. We
found no effect of session order (visual-auditory vs. auditory-visual) on the
mean time reproduction for 1
5.5 s, F(1, 13)1.12, h2p 0.09, p.31, and
for 1
10 s, F(1, 13)0.13, h2p 0.01, p.72, ranges of duration and no
interaction with duration and modality.
A two-way analysis of variance with repeated measures (modality and
duration) was carried out on CVs obtained for the two ranges of
duration. The results revealed an effect of duration, for 1
5.5 s, F(9,
117)3.80, h2p 0.23, pB.05, for 1
10 s, F(9, 117)2.44, h2p 0.16, pB
.05, and of modality, for 1
5.5 s, F(1, 13)36.36, h2p 0.73, pB.001, for
1
10 s, F(1, 13)33.59, h2p 0.72, pB.001, and a DurationModality
interaction, for 1
5.5 s, F(9, 117)3.76, h2p 0.22, pB.001, for 1
10 s,
F(9, 117)3.57, h2p 0.21, pB.001. Planned comparisons showed that
until 2.5 s for the 1
5.5 s and 2 s for the 1
10 s duration range,
reproductions were more precise with auditory than with visual durations
in the two ranges of durations, the Weber Fraction remaining relatively
constant in the auditory as compared to the visual modality. In this later
case, a breakpoint at 3 s was observed: The coefficient of variation of
shorter durations being higher. We found no effect of session order
(visual-auditory vs. auditory-visual) on the mean CV for 1
5.5 s, F(1,
13)2.05, h2p 0.13, p.17, and for 1
10 s, F(1, 13)0.15, h2p 0.02,
p.70, ranges of duration and no interaction with duration and
modality.
Figure 1 displays mean CE as a function of standard duration for visual
and auditory modalities in the 1
5.5 s (Figure 1a) and 1
10 s ranges of
durations (Figure 1b). The figure shows the average regression lines used to
estimate the location of the indifference intervals (CE0). Overall, short
durations tended to be overreproduced (means CE0) and long durations
tended to be underreproduced (means CEB0) when gauged relative to the
tested range.
To test whether the location of the indifference intervals was mediated
by the modality and the range of the durations, a two-way analysis of
variance with one repeated measure (modality) was carried out on the
values corresponding to CE0 obtained for each participant in the two
ranges of durations (1
5.5 s and 1
10 s). The analysis revealed a
significant effect of range, F(1, 24)4.38, h2p 0.15, pB.05, and a
significant effect of modality, F(1, 24)10.34, h2p 0.30, pB.01, the
mean value of the indifference interval being smaller in the visual (3097
26 NOULHIANE, POUTHAS, SAMSON

Figure 1. Constant error scores (averaged over participants) for each standard duration in visual
and auditory modalities. Solid lines show the regression lines for each modality (a) from 1 to 5.5 s,
intersecting the zero CE at 2973 ms for the visual modality and at 3416 ms for the auditory
modality (b) from 1 to 10 s, intersecting zero CE at 3205 ms for the visual modality and at 4863 ms
for the auditory modality.

ms) than in the auditory (4633 ms) modality. More interestingly, a

ModalityRange interaction was obtained, F(1, 24)11.78, h2p 0.33,
pB.01. As depicted in Figure 1, the location of the indifference interval
in the auditory modality was yoked to the mean of the tested range.
Planned comparisons showed that the indifference intervals obtained in
the two ranges of duration were significantly different in the auditory
modality (pB.05). It corresponded to 3416 ms (R2 .96) for the narrow
range and to 4863 ms (R2 .93) for the wide range. In the visual
modality, the location of the indifference interval did not appear to shift
with the tested range (p.45). It corresponded to 2973 ms (R2 .95) for
 TIME REPRODUCTION AND SENSORY MODALITIES 27

the narrow and to 3205 ms (R2 .95) for the wide range. Generally, the
amount of overreproduction was larger in auditory than in visual targets.
We verified that the order of the session (visual-auditory vs. auditory-
visual) did not affect our data. There was no significant effect neither for
1
5.5 s, F(1, 24)0.76, h2p 0.03, p.40, and for 1
10 s, F(1, 24)1.24,
h2p 0.05, p.28, ranges of duration, nor interaction with range and
modality.
It seems therefore that contextual information provided by the range of
durations produced migration of the indifference interval in the auditory
but not in the visual modality. Such a migration suggests that a dynamic
process related to exposure to standard durations progressively takes place
throughout the task. Since exposure to different ranges of duration affect
reproduction of auditory signals, we made the prediction that the location
of the indifference intervals obtained at the beginning and at the end of
the task differs in the auditory but not in the visual modality. To further
explore this possibility, we carried out the following analysis by
comparing the location of the indifference intervals obtained at the
beginning and at the end of the task in the auditory and the visual
modalities.
We thus examined the reproduction of the first and the last trials of
each of the 10 standard durations, for the two ranges of duration,
separately. For the 1
5.5 s range of duration, the results of the analysis of
variance with two repeated measures (modality and trials) carried out on
the values corresponding to CE0 revealed no significant effect of trials,
F(1, 24)0.29, h2p 0.02, p.59, but an effect of modality, F(1, 24)
5.97, h2p 0.19, pB.05, the mean of the indifference interval being larger
for the auditory (3422 ms) than for the visual modality (3113 ms). There
was no significant interaction, F(1, 24)0.02, h2p 0.001, p.88. For the
1
10 s range of duration, the results revealed an effect of trials, F(1, 24)
4.32, h2p 0.15, pB.05, the mean of the indifference interval being smaller
in the first trials (3469 ms) than in the last trials (4885 ms), and an
effect of modality, F(1, 24)13.98, h2p 0.36, pB.01, the mean of the
indifference interval being smaller in the visual modality (3076 ms) than in
the auditory one (5278 ms). More interestingly, the results showed a
significant TrialsModality interaction, F(1, 24)4.5, h2p 0.15, pB.05.
Planned comparisons showed significant differences in the auditory
modality between the first and the last trials (pB.05) but this difference
was not significant in the visual modality (p.78). These results are
depicted in Figure 2, which displays the mean CE scores obtained in the 1

10 s range of duration for the first as compared to the last trials in the
visual (Figure 2a) and in the auditory modality (Figure 2b). We verified
that the order of the session (visual-auditory vs. auditory-visual) did
not affect our data. Indeed, we found no significant effect for 1
5.5 s,
28 NOULHIANE, POUTHAS, SAMSON

Figure 2. Constant error scores (averaged over participants) for each standard duration in visual
and auditory modalities from 1 to 10 s for first (filled symbols) and last (open symbols) trials in the
session. (a) For the visual modality, the line intersects the zero CE at 2912 ms for the first trials and
at 3341 ms for the last trials. (b) For the auditory modality, the line intersects the zero CE at 4210
ms for the first trials and at 5541 ms for the last trials.

F(1, 24)0.46, h2p 0.02, p.50, or for 1
10 s, F(1, 24)0.02, h2p 0.002,
p.88, ranges of duration and no interaction with trials and modality
were observed.
 TIME REPRODUCTION AND SENSORY MODALITIES 29

DISCUSSION
The present study aimed at testing the influence of modality (auditory and
visual) on temporal reproduction of different time intervals by using two
ranges of durations (1
5.5 s and 1
10 s). For this purpose, we examined the
standard duration that produced the indifference interval (CE0). Our
results revealed a modality effect on temporal reproduction of time intervals,
which, as predicted, interacted with the duration range to be reproduced.
Different profiles of responses in the visual and auditory modalities were
observed for each range of duration.
In the visual modality, the location of the indifference interval did not
vary with the tested range, being always around 3 s. This finding is consistent
with data previously reported in the literature. Using temporal reproduction,
studies have shown that intervals up to 3 s are accurately reproduced (or
slightly overreproduced), whereas intervals above approximately 3 s are
underreproduced (e.g., Elbert et al., 1991; Kagerer et al., 2002; Szelag et al.,
2002; Ulbrich et al., 2007). Compatible with the proposition of distinct
mechanisms below and above 3 s, it seems plausible that short visual
intervals can be mentally preserved or grasped as a unit suggesting an
integration mechanism. Underreproduction of long visual intervals suggests
the involvement of memory mechanisms for intervals above 3 s in line with
previous findings reported in the literature (Fraisse, 1984; Pöppel, 1997,
2004).
In the auditory modality, the location of the indifference interval
differed depending on the duration range. Using two duration ranges
allowed us to show that the indifference interval was yoked to the mean
of both tested ranges: It overlapped with the critical value of approximately
3 s in the narrow range typical of previous studies, but was much greater
(5 s) for the wide duration range. Consistent with the hypothesis of distinct
mechanisms involvement as reported above in the visual modality (Fraisse,
1984; Pöppel, 1997, 2004), a critical value of 3 s was also observed for the
indifference interval within the range of 1
5.5 s in the auditory modality.
However, within the range from 1 to 10 s, the obtained value was around
5 s, which could reflect a central mean tendency. Indeed, the contextual
information provided by the durations of the wide range produced a
migration of the indifference interval to the mean in the auditory modality.
Moreover, when we compared the indifference interval value for the first
and last trials of the task, results revealed that this value was around the
classical 3 s on the first trials and, thereafter, shifted to a value close to the
mean at the end of the task. This indicates that for both modalities a
common process was involved, intervals below and above 3 s being
differentially processed (Fraisse, 1984; Pöppel, 1997, 2004). Then, in the
30 NOULHIANE, POUTHAS, SAMSON

auditory modality another process, progressively emerging throughout the

task, superimposed.
The observed migration suggests that a dynamic process related to
exposure to a range of durations progressively took place throughout the
auditory task. This dynamic process could be related to a learning
mechanism. Based on the building up of the different durations distribution,
the learning leads to the formation of a long-term memory standard
corresponding to the mean of the distribution. Reproduction of sample
durations below and above the mean would progressively shift towards this
central value. Such a dynamic adjustment reflected by a migration of the
interval indifference is well known as a central mean tendency and is
compatible with Vierordt’s (1868) law. This interpretation based on a
learning mechanism is moreover supported by the fact that the value of
the indifference interval obtained at the beginning of the auditory task was
smaller than the one obtained at the end of the task. Then, it moved in the
predicted direction. Furthermore, we can speculate that even within the
narrow range this learning process took place for the auditory modality.
However, it is impossible to disentangle the result of an integration process
(lasting approximately 3 s) and the outcome of a shift towards the mean of
the standard duration distribution, since the two values overlapped for the
1
5.5 s range.
The scalar timing theory assumes that the estimate of the current
duration might be maintained in working memory or added to the
distribution of the previously processed stimuli stored in reference memory.
Compatible with this theory, our explanatory hypothesis would imply that
the reproduced duration is a composite of the current sensory memory of
the sample duration and of the mean of the previously presented stimuli.
Therefore, the modality differences we obtained might be explained by
sensory memory differences. Several authors have reported that the trace of
visual signals only lasts 250
500 ms (Phillips, 1974; Sperling, 1960),
whereas the trace of auditory ones seems to remain available for much
longer time (10
20 s; Cowan, 1984; Winkler & Cowan, 2005). Taking into
account these fundamental differences between modalities, we can suggest
that visual sensory memory might be too brief to generate a representation
of duration allowing the formation of a long-term memory standard. Thus,
participants might have reproduced the duration just encoded during the
current trial by using working memory abilities. Interestingly, the upper
limit of 3 s matches the short-term memory span as previously suggested
by others authors (see Grondin’s comment in Cowan, 2001; Elbert et al.,
1991). By contrast, the more persistent auditory sensory memory allows
current duration to be reproduced in reference to the standard extracted
from the distribution of the values stored in long-term memory. Consider-
ing the decay of the sensory memory for auditory information, there
 TIME REPRODUCTION AND SENSORY MODALITIES 31

should be an upper limit on the auditory indifference interval. Further

support for such an interpretation can be found in the analysis of
coefficients of variation. According to previous studies, coefficients of
variation were consistent with Weber’s law in the auditory (Gibbons &
Rammsayer, 2004) but not in the visual modality (Elbert et al., 1991). The
results observed in the auditory modality thus indicate that participants
appear to rely on a more stable average representation of mean intervals.
Moreover, the results did not differ when the auditory session arrived first
or second. This lack of order effect is not compatible with an explanation
in terms of auditory modality predominance in reference memory (Penney
et al., 2000). When auditory and visual signals were presented sequentially
in the same test session of a bisection task, visual signals were classified as
shorter than equivalent duration auditory ones. These authors assumed
that anchor durations consisted of a mix of contributions from both
modalities, the auditory being more important than the visual one. Then,
auditory signals seem longer than visual signals relative to this composite
memory representation. However, such an explanation could not account
for the present results given that a single modality signal was presented in
each session.
Although the modality difference demonstrated in our study seems to
mainly depend on the differential properties of sensory memories and on
learning mechanisms, we cannot exclude the contribution of additional
factors. The effect of sensory modalities on time perception might be biased
by differences in subjective intensity of the stimuli. Nevertheless, in our study
reproduction of 3 s duration was similar for both visual and auditory stimuli
suggesting that intensity was rather well matched across modalities. To
explain the modality effect, some authors (Penney, 2003; Penney et al., 2000;
Penney, Meck, Roberts, Gibbon, & Erlenmeyer-Kimling, 2005; Szelag et al.,
2002) suggested that auditory stimuli might be better attended than visual
ones. Moreover, another factor could be related to the retention interval
(between the encoding phase and the reproduction per se) on visual and
auditory duration reproduction. We cannot directly address this issue with
our paradigm but we noted some discrepancies between results reported in
the literature. Ulbrich et al. (2007) observed a modality effect for duration
that exceeded 3 s by using a retention interval of 1 s, but Szelag et al. (2002)
obtained a modality effect for duration up to 3 s using a retention interval of
2 s. Finally, Kagerer et al. (2002) did not observe a modality effect with 2 s
retention interval. To date, no consensus seems to emerge in relation to the
retention interval between the to-be-timed stimulus and reproduced stimulus
duration.
In conclusion, we demonstrated a modality effect on temporal reproduc-
tion of time intervals which interacted with the duration range to be
reproduced. Indeed, our results showed that the location of the indifference
32 NOULHIANE, POUTHAS, SAMSON

interval did not vary with the tested range (around 3 s) in the visual
modality, whereas it was yoked to the mean of each tested range (around 3
and 5 s) in the auditory modality. Based on the special status of 3 s observed
in the visual modality (3 s corresponds to the indifference interval whatever
the duration ranges) and in the auditory modality (in the shorter duration
range and in the first trials of the larger duration range), we proposed that a
common process is involved in the two modalities, intervals below and above
3 s being differentially processed. We therefore assume that in the auditory
modality a dynamic process superimposed to this supramodal mechanism.
Since the auditory sensory memory is much more long-lasting than the
visual one, a learning mechanism took place. This led to the build-up of a
long-term memory standard corresponding to the mean of the presented
stimuli and consequently to the migration of the indifference interval to this
mean. By conjointly manipulating sensory modality and duration ranges, we
were able to shed light on cognitive processes differentially involved in the
reproduction of visual and auditory durations.

Original manuscript received November 2006

Revised manuscript received November 2007
First published online March 2008

REFERENCES
Brown, D. R., & Hitchcock, L. (1965). Time estimation: Dependence and independence of
modality specific effects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 21(3), 727
734.
Collier, G. L., & Logan, G. (2000). Modality differences in short-term memory for rhythms.
Memory and Cognition, 28(4), 529
538.
Cowan, N. (1984). On short and long auditory stores. Psychological Bulletin, 96(2), 341
370.
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental
storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87
114; discussion 114
185.
Droit-Volet, S., Meck, W. H., & Penney, T. B. (2007). Sensory modality and time perception in
children and adults. Behavioural Processes, 74(2), 244
250.
Droit-Volet, S., Tourret, S., & Wearden, J. (2004). Perception of the duration of auditory and visual
stimuli in children and adults. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Experimental Psychology, 57A(5), 797
818.
Elbert, T., Ulrich, R., Rockstroh, B., & Lutzenberger, W. (1991). The processing of temporal
intervals reflected by CNV-like brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 28(6), 648
655.
Fortin, C., & Couture, E. (2002). Short-term memory and time estimation: Beyond the 2-second
‘‘critical’’ value. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology [Revue Canadienne de
Psychologie Expérimentale], 56(2), 120
127.
Fraisse, P. (1984). Perception and estimation of time. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 1
36.
Gibbon, J., Church, R., & Meck, W. (1984). Scalar timing in memory. In J. Gibbon & L. Allan
(Eds.), Annals of New York Academy of Sciences: Vol. 423. Timing and time perception (pp. 52

77). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Gibbons, H., & Rammsayer, T. H. (2004). Current-source density analysis of slow brain potentials
during time estimation. Psychophysiology, 41(6), 861
874.
 TIME REPRODUCTION AND SENSORY MODALITIES 33

Glenberg, A. M., Mann, S., Altman, L., Forman, T., & Procise, S. (1989). Modality effects in the
coding and reproduction of rhythms. Memory and Cognition, 17(4), 373
383.
Goldstone, S., & Goldfarb, J. L. (1964). Direct comparison of auditory and visual durations.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 483
485.
Goldstone, S., & Lhamon, W. T. (1974). Studies of auditory-visual differences in human time
judgment. 1. Sounds are judged longer than lights. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39(1), 63
82.
Grondin, S. (2001). From physical time to the first and second moments of psychological time.
Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 22
44.
Hawkes, G. R., Bailey, R. W., & Warm, J. S. (1961). Method and modality in judgments of brief
stimulus duration. Journal of Auditory Research, 1, 133
144.
Kagerer, F. A., Wittmann, M., Szelag, E., & Steinbuchel, N. (2002). Cortical involvement in
temporal reproduction: Evidence for differential roles of the hemispheres. Neuropsychologia,
40(3), 357
366.
Lewis, P. A., & Miall, R. C. (2003). Distinct systems for automatic and cognitively controlled time
measurement: Evidence from neuroimaging. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13(2), 250
255.
Penney, T. B. (2003). Modality differences in interval timing: Attention, clock speed, and memory.
In W. H. Meck (Ed.), Functional and neural mechanisms of interval timing (pp. 209
234). Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Penney, T. B., Gibbon, J., & Meck, W. H. (2000). Differential effects of auditory and visual signals
on clock speed and temporal memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception,
26(6), 1770
1787.
Penney, T. B., Meck, W. H., Roberts, S. A., Gibbon, J., & Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L. (2005). Interval-
timing deficits in individuals at high risk for schizophrenia. Brain and Cognition, 58(1), 109

118.
Phillips, W. A. (1974). On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory.
Perception and Psychophysics, 16(2), 283
290.
Pöppel, E. (1997). A hierarchical model of temporal perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(2),
56
61.
Pöppel, E. (2004). Lost in time: A historical frame, elementary processing units and the 3-second
window. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 64, 295
301.
Rousseau, L., & Rousseau, R. (1996). Stop-reaction time and the internal clock. Perception and
Psychophysics, 58(3), 434
448.
Sebel, A. J., & Wilsoncroft, W. E. (1983). Auditory and visual differences in time perception.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57(1), 295
300.
Sperling, G. (1960). The information available in brief presentation. Psychological Monographs:
General and Applied, 74(11), 1
30.
Szelag, E., Kowalska, J., Rymarczyk, K., & Poppel, E. (2002). Duration processing in children as
determined by time reproduction: Implications for a few seconds temporal window. Acta
Psychologica (Amsterdam), 110(1), 1
19.
Ulbrich, P., Churan, J., Fink, M., & Wittmann, M. (2007). Temporal reproduction: Further
evidence for two processes. Acta Psychologica (Amsterdam), 125(1), 51
65.
Vierordt, K. (1868). Der Zitsinn nach Versuchen. Tübingen, Germany: Laupp.
Wearden, J. H. (1991). Do humans possess an internal clock with scalar timing properties?
Learning and Motivation, 22, 59
83.
Wearden, J. H., Edwards, H., Fakhri, M., & Percival, A. (1998). Why ‘‘sounds are judged longer
than lights’’: Application of a model of the internal clock in humans. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 51B(2), 97
120.
Wearden, J. H., Todd, N. P., & Jones, L. A. (2006). When do auditory/visual differences in duration
judgements occur? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(10), 1709
1724.
Winkler, I., & Cowan, N. (2005). From sensory to long-term memory: Evidence from auditory
memory reactivation studies. Experimental Psychology, 52(1), 3
20.
34 NOULHIANE, POUTHAS, SAMSON

Wittmann, M. (1999). Time perception and temporal processing levels of the brain. Chronobiology
International, 16(1), 17
32.
Woodrow, H. (1930). The reproduction of temporal intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
13, 473
499.
Woodrow, H. (1951). Time perception. In S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology
(pp. 1224
1236). New York: Wiley.
Woodworth, R. S., & Schlosberg, H. (1954). Experimental psychology. New York: Holt.