Get started
Work

Duration-Dependent Bias and Variability in Short-Interval Time Reproduction: Evidence for Separable Timing and Control-Related Mechanisms

Year: 2026
Type: preprint
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.
DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/9z53a_v1
Language: English
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W7213619957
Cites:
Cited by:
Related to: 10