Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (1976) 28, 71-76

IS THERE A CONSTANT MINIMUM

PERCEPTUAL DURATION!
LORRAINE G. ALLAN
Department of Psychology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
It has been suggested in the recent literature that all stimuli briefer than a critical
duration have identical perceptual durations. Relevant simultaneity, reaction time,
temporal order and duration discrimination data are discussed, and new data are
presented. It is concluded that the relationship between the physical duration of
a stimulus and its perceptual duration is not yet understood.
Introduction
Efron (197oa,b,c,d, 1973) has extensively investigated the relationship between the
physical duration of a brief stimulus and its perceptual duration. I n his experi-
ments the observer is required to make simultaneity judgements about two events.
He has concluded that for stimuli which are briefer than a critical duration
(approximately I 50 ms), perceptual offset latency increases as stimulus duration
is decreased. The result is a constant perceptual duration. The duration of the
perception of a brief stimulus has some fixed minimum which does not become
shorter regardless of how brief the physical stimulus is. Some aspects of the
simultaneity data obtained by Haber and Standing (1970) are also consistent with
the minimum duration hypothesis.
A constant minimum perceptual duration has implications for performance in
an offset reaction time task, for temporal order discrimination, and for judgements
about duration. If perceptual offset latency were an inverse function of stimulus
duration, one might expect to find that the reaction time to stimulus offset is also
an inverse function of stimulus duration. Neither the offset reaction time data of
Robinson (1973) nor of Briggs and Kinsbourne (1972) support this expectation.
For brief stimuli, offset reaction time is best described as independent of stimulus
duration.
Consider a temporal order discrimination task where the first stimulus is pre-
sented for d ms, followed t ms later, by a second d ms stimulus. If there is a
constant perceptual duration, tmin, then for combinations of d + t = k, where k is
a constant, one would expect no variation in temporal order discrimination
performance, for k < tmln. Data reported by Thor and Spitz (1968) indicate that
order discrimination performance is not constant for a constant value of d + t .
If the perceptual duration of brief stimuli is constant and independent of
stimulus duration, then discriminations between stimuli briefer than the minimum
perceptual duration cannot be based on perceptual duration. Allan and Kristof-
71
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
F
o
r
s
c
h
u
n
g
s
z
e
n
t
r
u
m

J
u
l
i
c
h

G
m
b
h
]

a
t

0
0
:
0
6

1
3

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

72 L. G. ALLAN
ferson (I 974) reviewed a number of duration discrimination studies which indicate
that discrimination performance is independent of detectable manipulations of the
energy dimensions of brief stimuli. They concluded that the available duration
discrimination literature suggests that the discriminations are based on temporal
information rather than on other cues which were also available. It could be
argued that this conclusion is inconsistent with the minimum duration hypothesis.
It should be noted that while the data of the two observers reported in Efrons
1970 simultaneity studies provide strong support for the minimum duration
hypothesis, perceptual duration is not precisely constant (Efron, 1973, p. 724)
for either of the two new observers in the 1973 study. Also, while under one
experimental condition the data of Haber and Standings (1970) one observer were
consistent with the minimum duration hypothesis, under the other conditions
the data were not.
I n sum, the main support for the minimum duration hypothesis is provided
by the simultaneity studies. The available reaction time data and temporal order
data are inconsistent with expectations generated by the minimum duration
hypothesis, and the conclusions of Allan and Kristofferson (1974) have yet to
be reconciled with the minimum duration hypothesis. It appears, then, that the
relationship between stimulus duration and perceptual duration is not yet estab-
lished. As
a first step, replication of Efrons basic finding was attempted. These results
are presented in this brief note.
A series of studies to investigate this relationship was undertaken.
Method
Three observers participated in this experiment. Two of the observers, LA (the author)
and ABK, knew of Efrons results. The third was naive with respect to the psychological
literature, and was paid for his services.
The procedure was similar to that used in Efrons (1970U) auditory offset-onset simul-
taneity experiment. The observers task was to adjust the temporal relationship between
the offset of a 72 dB white noise burst and the onset of a 500 ms, 72 dB, 2000 Hz tone so that
the two events were simultaneous. He was seated in a dimly illuminated, IAC sound
attenuated chamber. Each had
a rise-decay time of 2.5 ms. Stimulus presentation and timing, and response recording were
under the control of a PDP-8/S computer.
At the beginning of the trial the two stimuli were presented so that there was an obvious
gap between the offset of the noise and the onset of the tone (from 150 to 190 ms in 10 ms
steps, randomly determined). On succeeding presentations the gap was shortened by
10 ms steps until the observer reported that there was no longer a gap between the noise
offset and the tone onset. The two stimuli were then presented so that the tone onset
obviously occurred prior to the noise offset and on successive presentations this overlap was
shortened by 10 ms steps until the observer reported that there was no longer an overlap.
Thus, on each trial there were two response measures: D1, the temporal offset/onset interval
in milliseconds at which the transition from a gap response to a no gap response occurred,
and Dz, the interval at which the transition from an overlap to a no overlap response occurred.
Positive values of D1 and D2 indicate that the transition occurred when the noise offset
preceded the tone onset, negative values the reverse. The mean of the two measures, D,
was also determined for each trial.
Ten values of noise duration, d, were used (10, 30, 50, 70, 90, 110, 150, zoo, 300 and
500 ms). There were 10 trials per session, each value of doccurring once during a session in
The noise burst and the tone were presented dichotically.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
F
o
r
s
c
h
u
n
g
s
z
e
n
t
r
u
m

J
u
l
i
c
h

G
m
b
h
]

a
t

0
0
:
0
6

1
3

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

PERCEPTUAL DURATION 73
a randomly determined order.
in 12 data sessions, LA and JR in nine sessions each.
After receiving a few practice sessions, ABK participated
Results
The mean value of D, (El), D, (5,) and D (5) over sessions was determined
for each value of d, and these are presented in Table I for each observer. The
standard deviation of the response measures (ul, (J,, U) are also available in Table I
for each value of d.
TABLE I
The mean and standard deviations of the three response measures (ms)
Observer d
LA
JR
-
D,
82-50
73'33
72-50
74-17
43'33
60.00
34'17
32.50
28.33
40.83
65-56
48-89
40.00
31.11
18.89
3'33
- I 8.89
- 32.22
- 1'1 I
- 58.89
14'44
6.67
6-67
13-33
-5.56
0'00
- 20'00
- 13'33
-22.22
-22'22
-
D
I
09-17
73'33
59'17
95'83
51.67
46.67
29.17
5.00
2 I '67
2.50
16.67
41-1 I
34'44
26.67
4.44
3'33
- 52.22
-52-22
15.56
I 8.89
- 4'44
-5.56
- 16.67
-25.56
- 27.78
- 30.00
- 14'44
- 26.67
27'78
-21.11
95'83
84'58
72-92
66.67
47'50
53'33
35.00
27.08
I5 '42
19-58
24'87
19'73
17'85
24'64
17.00
33'42
20.60
17'53
35.3'8
24. I 0
24'97
26.61
3010
30.12
38.69
40.68
25.64
28.72
38.69
22.41
18.58
19.31
18-54
19'93
23'05
52.81
18.37
18.98
31'19
17.01
41-11
38.33
40'56
32.78
22.78
3.89
1'11
- 20'00
-42.22
-55.56
15.00
I 2.78
3.89
-8.33
-23.89
1'11
- 15'56
-21.67
- 18-33
24'44
25-42
15.23
21.08
17-92
19.12
25'39
29.98
42'54
32'24
47.48
12.58
16.24
33.00
28.68
15.63
13'42
28.28
14-91
16.18
25-29
28.67
29'35
20'79
19'51
23'57
24'09
24'94
20.79
23'94
30'47
17.06
12.86
27-13
24'99
12-47
15.71
29-73
24.04
43'49
24'94
19-40
18.71
15.71
11.33
16.68
15'77
15.23
27'79
33-34
22'00
12'25
25.69
24-13
5'77
I 1.89
24.81
I 1.06
17'95
13-56
19.78
I n Figure I , 5 is plotted as a function of d for each observer. For all observers
the value of 5 decreased for increasing values of d, and for two of the observers
(ABK and JR) levelled off at d equal to about 150 ms. The minimum duration
hypothesis predicts that for values of d less than a critical value, 5 is a decreasing
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
F
o
r
s
c
h
u
n
g
s
z
e
n
t
r
u
m

J
u
l
i
c
h

G
m
b
h
]

a
t

0
0
:
0
6

1
3

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

74
L. G. ALLAN
-40 c
100 200 300 400 500
d
FIGURE I.
observer. (a) Observer A.B.K. (b) Observer L. A. ( c) Observer J.R.
The mean value of D in milliseconds as a function of noise duration, d, for each
function of d, with slope - I. For values of d larger than the critical value, the
slope should be 0. I t is clear from Figure I that for all three observers the slope
of the decreasing portion of the function is considerably larger than -I.
to be larger than 5,.
For each observer the mean value of 5, over the 10 values of d is larger than the
mean value of D, (54.17 vs. 49.42, 9.67 vs. 2.89, -4.22 vs. -11.67 for observers
ABK, LA and JR, respectively). The value of the temporal interval between
noise offset and tone onset at which the transition from one response to another
response occurs depends upon whether the series is descending (gap to overlap)
or ascending (overlap to gap).
From Table I it can be seen that the standard deviations o,, a,, and o are not
systematically related to d.
Inspection of Table I reveals that there is a tendency for
-
Discussion
and stimulus duration observed in this experiment
can be taken to demonstrate that for brief stimuli perceptual offset latency in-
creases as stimulus duration is decreased. However, the results do not support
The relationship between
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
F
o
r
s
c
h
u
n
g
s
z
e
n
t
r
u
m

J
u
l
i
c
h

G
m
b
h
]

a
t

0
0
:
0
6

1
3

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

PERCEPTUAL DURATION 75
the prediction that stimulus duration plus offset latency yields a constant per-
ceptual duration.
Robinsons (1973) data can be interpreted to demonstrate that perceptual offset
latency is constant and independent of stimulus duration. I n order to integrate
his data with Efrons, he suggested that more than one temporally distinct
representation of stimulus offset occurs in the nervous system (p. 282).
Another possible explanation of the discrepancy between the simultaneity data
and the offset reaction time data is that D is not a good measure of perceptual
offset latency. This possibility is suggested by the different values of El and E2,
the variability in the form of the function among the three observers in the present
study, and the lack of similarity between these functions and Efrons functions.
The simultaneity data are generated in experiments employing psychophysical
methodology which is known to produce changes in performance which often
reflect variations in response strategy, and data which are difficult to replicate
across laboratories. I n fact, in discussing his own data, Efron (1970~) considers
the possibility that his results could be interpreted as a systematic change in the
observers criterion for simultaneity which is induced by changing the duration
of the first stimulus. He concluded that There is no evidence available which
supports the view that such a mathematically regular change in subjective criteria
in this psychophysical experiment could have been induced by variation of the
duration of the first stimulus (p. 53). While it is true that there is no direct
evidence to indicate that Efrons results are determined by criterion changes, there
are data in the literature which show that changes in criterion do occur as a function
of stimulus changes, and that the nature of the change is highly variable among
observers (Allan, 1968; Kinchla and Allan, 1970; Kinchla and Smyzer, 1967). I n
a recent article Swets (1973) has brought together evidence to show that . . . the
effects of biasing factors on the report have often been viewed as properties of
the discrimination process, with the result that incorrect conclusions have been
drawn about the nature of perception . . . (p. 991). Given the possible role
of changes in criterion as a function of stimulus duration, it would be wise in
further studies of the relation between stimulus duration and perceptual duration
to use psychophysical methods which allow one to evaluate the role of criterion
changes.
I n sum, the failure to reproduce the basic Efron result in the present study,
the doubts raised about the minimum duration hypothesis by the reaction time
data and by the temporal order discrimination data, and the difficulties of recon-
ciling the duration discrimination literature with the minimum duration hypo-
thesis, suggest that the existence of a constant minimum perceptual duration has
not yet been established. The relationship between the physical duration of
a stimulus and its perceptual duration is not yet understood and merits further
investigation.
This research was supported by Grant A8260 from the National Research Council of
Canada. I would like to express my appreciation to A. B. Kristofferson for his participation
as a subject in this experiment, and for his insightful comments during dicusssions concerned
concerned with this research program.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
F
o
r
s
c
h
u
n
g
s
z
e
n
t
r
u
m

J
u
l
i
c
h

G
m
b
h
]

a
t

0
0
:
0
6

1
3

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

76 L. G. ALLAN
References
ALLAN, L. G. (1968). Visual position discrimination: a model relating temporal and
spatial factors.
ALLAN, L. G. and KRISTOFFERSON, A. B. (1974). Psychophysical theories of duration dis-
crimination.
BRIGGS, G. G. and KINSBOURNE, M. (1972). Visual persistence as measured by reaction
time.
EFRON, R. ( 1 9 7 0 ~) . The relationship between the duration of a stimulus and the duration
of a perception.
EFRON, R. (197ob). The minimum duration of a perception. Neuropsychologica, 8, 57-63.
EFRON, R. ( 1970~) . Effect of stimulus duration on perceptual onset and offset latencies.
EFRON, R. (197od). The measurement of perceptual durations. Studium Generale,
EFRON, R. (1973). An invariant characteristic of perceptual systems in the time domain.
Pp. 713-36. New York:
Direct estimates of the apparent duration of a
Visual movement perception: a comparison of
Perception and Psychophysics, 8,
Per-
Perception
Science (Wash-
Temporal discrimination as a function of total
Revised manuscript received 10 February 1975
Perception and Psychophysics, 4, 26778.
Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 26-34.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 3 I 8-25.
Neuropsychologica, 8, 37-55.
Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 23 I .
23, 55-61.
In KORNBLUM, S. (Ed.), Attention and Performance IV.
Academic Press.
flash.
sensitivity to vertical and horizontal movement.
399-405.
ception and Psychopliyysics, 2, 219-29.
and Psychophysics, 13, 281-3.
ington), 182, 990-1000.
presentation time.
HABER, R. N. and STANDING, L. G. (1970).
KINCHLA, R. A. and ALLAN, L. G. (1970).
Canadian Journal of Psychology, 24, 216-29.
KINCHLA, R. A. and SMYZER, F. (1967).
ROBINSON, C. E. (1973).
SWETS, J . A. (1973).
THOR, D. H. and SPI TZ, H. H. (1968).
A diffusion model of perceptual memory.
Reaction time to the offset of brief auditory stimuli.
The relative operating characteristic in psychology.
Psychonomic Science, 13, 291-2.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
F
o
r
s
c
h
u
n
g
s
z
e
n
t
r
u
m

J
u
l
i
c
h

G
m
b
h
]

a
t

0
0
:
0
6

1
3

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4