Duration-Dependent Bias and Variability in Short-Interval Time Reproduction: Evidence for Separable Timing and Control-Related Mechanisms
Abstract
Time-reproduction performance can reflect both systematic distortions in temporal estimates and variability in the response used to express those estimates. The present study examined whether these aspects show different patterns across short target durations and participant groups. Sixty-seven HSE University students initially completed a PsychoPy-based time-reproduction task; five were excluded for insufficient valid trials, leaving 62 participants (40 International, 22 Russian). Participants reproduced five target durations (1.4, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, and 2.6 s). Performance was quantified using signed error, absolute error, and coefficient of variation (CV). Signed error showed a strong duration effect, F(4, 240) = 78.35, p < .001, ηp² = .566, whereas neither the group effect, F(1, 60) = 3.74, p = .057, nor duration × group interaction, F(4, 240) = 1.26, p = .285, was significant. Shorter intervals were over-reproduced and longer intervals under-reproduced, consistent with central tendency. Absolute error showed effects of group, F(1, 60) = 8.86, p = .004, ηp² = .129, duration, F(4, 240) = 2.50, p = .043, and their interaction, F(4, 240) = 3.60, p = .007, ηp² = .057. CV likewise showed effects of group, F(1, 60) = 10.57, p = .002, ηp² = .150, duration, F(4, 240) = 18.27, p < .001, ηp² = .233, and duration × group, F(4, 240) = 6.55, p < .001, ηp² = .098. The findings indicate that directional bias and response variability provide non-equivalent information about temporal reproduction. The behavioural results are compatible with contextual calibration of temporal estimates and with additional influences on response consistency, but they do not identify specific cognitive or neural mechanisms.
Related
- Nutrient-dependent bet-hedging between reproduction and sporulation in Bacillus subtilis
- Large variability of preincubation storage temperature in chukar partridge eggs under normal storage duration: Impact on egg and hatching traits, and embryonic development
- Genotype-dependent effect of short-term soaking duration on the phytonutritional composition, antinutritional factors, and primary metabolome of sesame grains
- Duration-dependent acute effects of foam rolling on dominant-hand visual reaction time in male youth basketball players: A randomized controlled study
- Genetic variants associated with cell-type-specific intra-individual gene expression variability reveal mechanisms of genome regulation
BibTeX
@misc{naseer2026durationdependent,
title = {{Duration-Dependent Bias and Variability in Short-Interval Time Reproduction: Evidence for Separable Timing and Control-Related Mechanisms}},
author = {Aliza Naseer and Elena Gorbunova},
howpublished = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/9z53a_v1},
url = {https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/9z53a_v1/},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Duration-Dependent Bias and Variability in Short-Interval Time Reproduction: Evidence for Separable Timing and Control-Related Mechanisms
AU - Aliza Naseer
AU - Elena Gorbunova
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/19
PB - PsyArXiv
DO - 10.31234/osf.io/9z53a_v1
UR - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/9z53a_v1/
AB - Time-reproduction performance can reflect both systematic distortions in temporal estimates and variability in the response used to express those estimates. The present study examined whether these aspects show different patterns across short target durations and participant groups. Sixty-seven HSE University students initially completed a PsychoPy-based time-reproduction task; five were excluded for insufficient valid trials, leaving 62 participants (40 International, 22 Russian). Participants reproduced five target durations (1.4, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, and 2.6 s). Performance was quantified using signed error, absolute error, and coefficient of variation (CV). Signed error showed a strong duration effect, F(4, 240) = 78.35, p < .001, ηp² = .566, whereas neither the group effect, F(1, 60) = 3.74, p = .057, nor duration × group interaction, F(4, 240) = 1.26, p = .285, was significant. Shorter intervals were over-reproduced and longer intervals under-reproduced, consistent with central tendency. Absolute error showed effects of group, F(1, 60) = 8.86, p = .004, ηp² = .129, duration, F(4, 240) = 2.50, p = .043, and their interaction, F(4, 240) = 3.60, p = .007, ηp² = .057. CV likewise showed effects of group, F(1, 60) = 10.57, p = .002, ηp² = .150, duration, F(4, 240) = 18.27, p < .001, ηp² = .233, and duration × group, F(4, 240) = 6.55, p < .001, ηp² = .098. The findings indicate that directional bias and response variability provide non-equivalent information about temporal reproduction. The behavioural results are compatible with contextual calibration of temporal estimates and with additional influences on response consistency, but they do not identify specific cognitive or neural mechanisms.
ER -