How well can people judge when something happened?

The implicit sense of agency is not a perceptual effect but is a judgment effect

The sense of agency (SoA) is characterized as the sense of being the causal agent of one's own actions, and it is measured in two forms: explicit and implicit. In the explicit SoA experiments, the participants explicitly report whether they have a sense of control over their actions or whether they or somebody else is the causal agent of seen actions; the implicit SoA experiments study how do participants' agentive or voluntary actions modify perceptual processes (like time, vision, tactility, and audition) without directly asking the participants to explicitly think about their causal agency or sense of control. However, recent implicit SoA literature reported contradictory findings of the relationship between implicit SoA reports and agency states. Thus, I argue that the purported implicit SoA reports are not agency-driven perceptual effects per se but are judgment effects, by showing that (a) the typical operationalizations in implicit SoA domain lead to perceptual uncertainty on the part of the participants, (b) under uncertainty, participants' implicit SoA reports are due to heuristic judgments which are independent of agency states, and (c) under perceptual certainty, the typical implicit SoA reports might not have occurred at all. Thus, I conclude that the instances of implicit SoA are judgments (or response biases)-under uncertainty-rather than perceptual effects.

The Role of Temporal Information in Perisaccadic Mislocalization

In dynamic environments, it is crucial to accurately consider the timing of information. For instance, during saccades the eyes rotate so fast that even small temporal errors in relating retinal stimulation by flashed stimuli to extra-retinal information about the eyes' orientations will give rise to substantial errors in where the stimuli are judged to be. If spatial localization involves judging the eyes' orientations at the estimated time of the flash, we should be able to manipulate the pattern of mislocalization by altering the estimated time of the flash. We reasoned that if we presented a relevant flash within a short rapid sequence of irrelevant flashes, participants' estimates of when the relevant flash was presented might be shifted towards the centre of the sequence. In a first experiment, we presented five bars at different positions around the time of a saccade. Four of the bars were black. Either the second or the fourth bar in the sequence was red. The task was to localize the red bar. We found that when the red bar was presented second in the sequence, it was judged to be further in the direction of the saccade than when it was presented fourth in the sequence. Could this be because the red bar was processed faster when more black bars preceded it? In a second experiment, a red bar was either presented alone or followed by two black bars. When two black bars followed it, it was judged to be further in the direction of the saccade. We conclude that the spatial localization of flashed stimuli involves judging the eye orientation at the estimated time of the flash.

Precise timing when hitting falling balls

People are extremely good at hitting falling balls with a baseball bat. Despite the ball's constant acceleration, they have been reported to time hits with a standard deviation of only about 7 ms. To examine how people achieve such precision, we compared performance when there were no added restrictions, with performance when looking with one eye, when vision was blurred, and when various parts of the ball's trajectory were hidden from view. We also examined how the size of the ball and varying the height from which it was dropped influenced temporal precision. Temporal precision did not become worse when vision was blurred, when the ball was smaller, or when balls falling from different heights were randomly interleaved. The disadvantage of closing one eye did not exceed expectations from removing one of two independent estimates. Precision was higher for slower balls, but only if the ball being slower meant that one saw it longer before the hit. It was particularly important to see the ball while swinging the bat. Together, these findings suggest that people time their hits so precisely by using the changing elevation throughout the swing to adjust the bat's movement to that of the ball.

Timing the moment of impact in fast human movements

The reported resolution of timing the moment of impact in fast human movements differs widely depending on the task. Surprisingly, better timing is reported for the demanding task of batting a ball than for the much simpler task of tapping in synchrony with two hands. We wondered whether this is because a sizeable part of timing variability arises from misjudging the distance in the direction of one's own movement, so that moving faster (as the bat does when moving toward a ball) improves timing. We found that moving faster does indeed improve timing in both the above-mentioned tasks. After removing the proposed contribution of misjudging the distance in the direction of one's own movement, we estimated that the remaining standard deviation in timing is just over 6ms for both tasks.

Effects of stimulus duration on audio-visual synchrony perception

The integration of visual and auditory inputs in the human brain occurs only if the components are perceived in temporal proximity, that is, when the intermodal time difference falls within the so-called subjective synchrony range. We used the midpoint of this range to estimate the point of subjective simultaneity (PSS). We measured the PSS for audio-visual (AV) stimuli in a synchrony judgment task, in which subjects had to judge a given AV stimulus using three response categories (audio first, synchronous, video first). The relevant stimulus manipulation was the duration of the auditory and visual components. Results for unimodal auditory and visual stimuli have shown that the perceived onset shifts to relatively later positions with increasing stimulus duration. These unimodal shifts should be reflected in changing PSS values, when AV stimuli with different durations of the auditory and visual components are used. The results for 17 subjects showed indeed a significant shift of the PSS for different duration combinations of the stimulus components. Because the shifts were approximately equal for duration changes in either of the components, no net shift of the PSS was observed as long as the durations of the two components were equal. This result indicates the need to appropriately account for unimodal timing effects when quantifying intermodal synchrony perception.