Acta Psychologica 170 (2016) 163167

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Acta Psychologica

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actpsy

Representations of temporal information in short-term memory: Are

they modality-specic?
Daniel Bratzke , Katrina R. Quinn, Rolf Ulrich, Karin M. Bausenhart
University of Tbingen, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Rattat and Picard (2012) reported that the coding of temporal information in short-term memory is modality-
Received 17 November 2015 specic, that is, temporal information received via the visual (auditory) modality is stored as a visual (auditory)
Received in revised form 22 July 2016 code. This conclusion was supported by modality-specic interference effects on visual and auditory duration
Accepted 3 August 2016
discrimination, which were induced by secondary tasks (visual tracking or articulatory suppression), presented
Available online 9 August 2016
during a retention interval. The present study assessed the stability of these modality-specic interference effects.
Keywords:
Our study did not replicate the selective interference pattern but rather indicated that articulatory suppression
Short-term memory not only impairs short-term memory for auditory but also for visual durations. This result pattern supports a
Temporal information crossmodal or an abstract view of temporal encoding.
Temporal discrimination 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Representation
Sensory modalities

1. Introduction
Processing of temporal information is an important function of
the cognitive system. Temporal information is required in many pro-
cesses such as anticipating and estimating the duration of events,
and initializing coordinative behavior. Even basic learning processes
like classical conditioning would be impossible without temporal
processing. In order to utilize temporal information, this information
needs to be maintained within the organism at least for short periods
of time. Therefore it is important to understand how temporal infor-
mation is encoded and maintained in short-term memory. There are
at least three different views regarding this matter.
First, it has often been suggested that the memory representation of
temporal information is based on accumulation of internal signals like
neural pulses or ticks elicited by an internal pacemaker (Creelman,
1962; Gibbon, Church, & Meck, 1984; Treisman, 1963). Within the
framework of such pacemaker-accumulator models, the number of ac-
cumulated pulses represents the duration of an interval as an abstract
amodal code (Rammsayer & Ulrich, 2005; Wearden, Todd, & Jones,
2006). Second and more recently, it has been suggested that temporal
information is primarily encoded in the auditory system (crossmodal
encoding; Bratzke, Seifried, & Ulrich, 2012; Guttman, Gilroy, & Blake,
We thank Julia Feyerabend and Laura Schneider for assistance with data collection.
This study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (UL 116/14-1 and
BA 4110/3-2).
Corresponding author at: Fachbereich Psychologie, Universitt Tbingen,
Schleichstrasse 4, 72076 Tbingen, Germany.
E-mail address: daniel.bratzke@uni-tuebingen.de (D. Bratzke).
2005; Kanai, Lloyd, Bueti, & Walsh, 2011). This view assumes that irre-
spective of input modality, temporal information is stored as an audito-
ry representation because the auditory system is especially suited for
temporal processing (Welch & Warren, 1980). Third, another recent
view holds that the representation of temporal information is specic
to the sensory input modality. This view is implied by intrinsic timing
models which assume that temporal processing is an inherent feature
of early sensory processing (Buonomano & Karmarkar, 2002; Ivry &
Schlerf, 2008).
There is evidence for each of these views. First, an amodal view
appears plausible because it is possible to compare short durations
not only within the same modality but also across modalities.
Moreover, differences in discrimination of visual and auditory du-
rations are consistent with the amodal view if one assumes that
the pacemaker runs faster for auditory than for visual input
(Ulrich, Nitschke, & Rammsayer, 2006; Wearden, Edwards, Fakhri,
& Percival, 1998). Second, the crossmodal view receives support
from transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) studies showing
that disruption of the primary auditory cortex not only impairs dis-
crimination of auditory but also of visual (Kanai et al., 2011) and
tactile durations (Bolognini, Papagno, Moroni, & Maravita, 2010).
In addition, incongruent information impairs visual rhythm dis-
crimination more strongly if it is presented in the auditory rather
than in the visual modality (Guttman et al., 2005). Similarly, dura-
tion perception of visual intervals is much more strongly impaired
by irrelevant auditory information than vice versa (Bausenhart, de
la Rosa, & Ulrich, 2014). Moreover, Bratzke et al. (2012) found
that perceptual learning of temporal discrimination transfers
from the auditory to the visual modality but not vice versa. Third,
one piece of evidence supporting the modality-specic view is the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.08.002
0001-6918/ 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
164 D. Bratzke et al. / Acta Psychologica 170 (2016) 163167
nding of modality-specic subjective shortening effects. That is,
Takahashi and Watanabe (2012) reported subjective shortening
of perceived duration with increasing delay between a standard
and a comparison duration, when the comparison was visual but
not when it was auditory (but see Wearden, Goodson, & Foran,
2007, for subjective shortening also in the auditory modality).
Even more direct evidence for the modality-specic view is provid-
ed by a recent study by Rattat and Picard (2012), which forms the
basis for the present research.
In their study, Rattat and Picard (2012) used an interference par-
adigm to investigate short-term memory for visual, auditory and vi-
sual-auditory durations ranging from 400 to 600 ms. Participants
were asked to discriminate between two durations separated by a
retention interval of 8 s. During the retention interval they per-
formed either an articulatory suppression task, a visuo-spatial track-
ing task, or no task at all. The results revealed a selective interference
pattern: articulatory suppression impaired discrimination of audito-
ry but not of visual and bimodal durations, and visual tracking im-
paired discrimination of visual but not of auditory and bimodal
durations. This pattern of results strongly supports the modality-
specic view. A similar interference effect of articulatory suppres-
sion on auditory temporal short-term memory has been reported
by Franssen, Vandierendonck, and Van Hiel (2006). Additionally,
Rammsayer and Ulrich (2005) also found no interference effect of a
visuo-spatial secondary task (pattern recognition) on temporal dis-
crimination of auditory stimuli. However, regarded in isolation,
these types of interference would also be consistent with both the
amodal and the crossmodal view of temporal short-term memory
as described above. Thus, Rattat and Picard's nding of an interfer-
ence effect induced by visuo-spatial tracking on the memory repre-
sentation of visual but not of auditory temporal information is
especially important for their conclusion in favor of the modality-
specic view. Yet, this particular nding appears to be isolated in
the literature so far.
Therefore, the present study aimed to provide a further evaluation of
the three encoding views. To this end, we employed Rattat and Picard's
(2012) interference design but excluded the bimodal condition because
this condition is not diagnostic for the distinction between the different
memory views. In order to increase statistical power, we used a within-
subject instead of a between-subject design with the same overall num-
ber of participants as in their study. According to the modality-specic
view, we would expect a selective interference pattern as observed in
Rattat and Picard's study. That is, articulatory suppression should impair
discrimination of auditory but not of visual durations whereas visual
tracking should impair discrimination of visual but not of auditory dura-
tions. Under the crossmodal view, articulatory suppression should im-
pair discrimination of both auditory and visual durations whereas
visual tracking should not impair discrimination in either modality.
For the amodal view, at least two outcomes are conceivable. First, it is
possible that the abstract time information is stored at an amodal mem-
ory level, as for example in the episodic buffer (Baddeley, 2012). Ac-
cording to this possibility, neither visual nor auditory discrimination
performance should be affected by any of the interference tasks. Second,
the abstract time information might be retained in the phonological
loop and thus the predictions would resemble those of the crossmodal
view.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
36 participants (31 women) with a mean age of 22.94 (SD = 6.81)
years volunteered to take part in two separate sessions of the experi-
ment. They received either course credit or payment for their
participation.
2.2. Apparatus and stimuli
The experiment was implemented in Matlab using the Psychophys-
ics Toolbox extension (Brainard, 1997; Kleiner, Brainard, & Pelli, 2007).
Participants sat in front of a computer screen with a viewing distance of
approximately 70 cm. All auditory stimuli were presented binaurally via
headphones. A 500 Hz sinewave tone with a peak amplitude of 65 dB(A)
SPL and rise and fall times of 5 ms served as the auditory duration stim-
ulus. There were six different durations of this stimulus: 400, 440, 480,
520, 560, and 600 ms. Also, recordings of ten German syllables (ar,
en, ip, ot, uk, be, to, su, li, and ke), spoken by a female voice,
were each presented with a peak amplitude of 72 dB SPL and served
as stimuli for the articulatory suppression task.
All visual stimuli were presented on a white background (81 cd/m2)
on a 17-in. CRT monitor (1024 768 pixels) running at 100 Hz. Visual
stimuli consisted of a black xation dot (b1 cd/m2, 1 mm diameter), a
black question mark (3 5 mm) which served as response prompt,
and a blue square (7.7 cd/m2, 44 44 mm) which served as the visual
duration stimulus. All these visual stimuli were presented at the center
of the screen. There were six different durations of the visual duration
stimulus: 320, 380, 440, 560, 620, and 680 ms. These visual durations
span a wider range than the auditory durations (400600 ms)
employed in the present study, and also than the visual durations
employed in Rattat and Picard's (2012) original study. We chose these
duration ranges in order to compensate for the typically observed larger
discrimination thresholds for visual than auditory durations (e.g.,
Grondin, 1993; Ulrich et al., 2006), such that comparable performance
levels would be obtained for the two modalities. In addition, 9 different
black shapes (circle, triangle, diamond, cross, pentagon, trapezoid, kite,
parallelogram, hexagon, and quadrilobe, all with a diameter of approx-
imately 17 mm) served as stimuli for the visual tracking task. Responses
were collected using the x and m keys on a standard German
keyboard.
2.3. Procedure
Each participant took part in two experimental sessions, an auditory
discrimination session and a visual discrimination session (with a max-
imum separation of 8 days between the two sessions).
The time course of each trial was as follows: Each trial started
with the presentation of the xation point at the center of the screen.
After 750 ms, the rst duration stimulus was presented, chosen ran-
domly with equal probability from the six possible durations. In au-
ditory trials, the xation point remained on the screen during this
duration. At the end of the rst duration, the 8 s retention interval
started with a blank screen. 1000 ms before the end of the retention
interval the xation point reappeared and remained at the center of
the screen during presentation of the second duration (only in audi-
tory trials) and for another 1000 ms thereafter (in all trials). The sec-
ond duration was presented immediately after the end of the
retention interval. It was either equal to the rst duration (50%
same trials) or it differed from the rst duration (50% different
trials). In different trials, when the rst duration was shorter
than 500 ms, the second duration was 120 (240) ms longer in audi-
tory (visual) trials. By contrast, when the rst duration was longer
than 500 ms, the second one was 120 (240) ms shorter in auditory
(visual) trials. 1000 ms after the end of the second duration, the x-
ation point was replaced by a question mark, which prompted par-
ticipants to indicate whether they perceived the two durations as
being equal or different. As soon as a key press was registered, the re-
sponse prompt disappeared, and the next trial started after another
750 ms.
Within each modality session, participants completed three blocks
of trials, each differing in the nature of the interference task presented
during the retention interval. In no interference blocks, the screen
remained empty during the rst 7 s of the retention interval. In visual
 D. Bratzke et al. / Acta Psychologica 170 (2016) 163167 165

tracking blocks, one of the ten different shapes, picked at random, ap-
peared 250 ms after the start of the retention interval at the center of
the screen. It moved around the screen until the xation point
reappeared, following a different trajectory in each trial, which included
random and unpredictable changes of direction and movement speed.1
Participants had to track these stimuli with their eyes as long as they
were present on the screen. In articulatory suppression blocks, one
of the ten syllables, picked at random, was presented 150 ms after the
start of the retention interval. Participants then repeated this syllable
aloud until the xation point reappeared. Participants' adherence to
the visual tracking and to the articulatory suppression task was moni-
tored by the experimenter outside the experimental booth via a cam-
era-and-microphone setup.
For each of the combinations of duration modality (visual, auditory)
and interference task (no interference, visual tracking, and articulatory
suppression), participants completed 3 practice trials (randomly chosen
from all possible trials within each factorial combination) and 4 exper-
imental blocks of 12 trials each (one same and one different trial
for each of the possible 6 durations). Within each of these experimental
blocks, all durations were thus presented equally often and the order of
trials was randomized. After each experimental block, participants re-
ceived feedback about the percentage of correct responses in the cur-
rent block and could take a self-terminated break. Duration modality
was varied between sessions, and interference task was varied
blockwise within each session. The order of modality sessions and inter-
ference tasks was completely balanced across participants. The re-
sponse-to-key assignment was also balanced across participants.

3. Results

As in Rattat and Picard (2012), the dependent variables were the

nonparametric indices A and B for sensitivity and bias, respectively.
These were calculated separately for each participant and each condi-
tion according to the formulas provided by Grier (1971) with the cor-
rection for below chance performance proposed by Aaronson and
Watts (1987). Accordingly, with h denoting the hit rate and f the false
alarm rate, these indices are given by
8 Fig. 1. Mean sensitivity A (upper panel) and mean bias B (lower panel) as a function of
>
> hf  1 h f
< 0:5 if h f interference task and duration modality. Error bars represent 1 within-subject subject
0 4  h  1 f error according to Morey (2008). Asterisks indicate signicant post-hoc Tukey contrasts
A 1:1
>
> f h  1 f h for the main effect of interference task (** p b 0.001).
: 0:5 if hbf ;
4  f  1h

and
8 Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to adjust p-values where
>
> h  1hf  1 f
< if h f
h  1h f  1 f
B 1:2
>
> f  1f h  1h
: if hbf :
h  1h f  1 f
Prior to calculation of these indices, trials with RTs exceeding 5 s
were classied as lapses and discarded (0.7% of all trials). ANOVAs
with the within-subjects factors duration modality (visual vs. audi-
tory) and interference task (no interference, visual tracking, and
1
In each trial, the to-be-tracked shape always appeared at the screen center. Then, its
position changed with each refresh of the monitor (i.e., after each 10 ms). Specically,
for each refresh, the target moved between 12 and +12 pixels in the horizontal and/
or the vertical direction, with the restriction to move at least two pixels in at least one di-
rection and to remain within the screen boundaries. Direction and velocity of this move-
ment remained constant between frames with a probability of ~ 38%. Otherwise,
movement direction and velocity changed randomly by a small amount, with smaller
changes (e.g. 2 pixels in one of the directions per frame) being more likely than larger
changes, resulting in a coarsely continuous yet unpredictable trajectory with a velocity
varying between 5.5 and 44.4 of visual angle/s.
articulatory suppression) were conducted for A and also for B. The
appropriate.
Fig. 1 (upper panel) depicts mean A values as a function of duration
modality and interference task. Note that A can range from 0 to 1, with
A = 0.5 indicating chance level, and A = 1 representing perfect dis-
crimination performance. In the present study, the overall level of
discrimination performance was somewhat higher than the one ob-
served by Rattat and Picard (2012), and mean A values differed
less between conditions than in their study. Yet, an ANOVA revealed
a signicant main effect of interference task, F(2, 70) = 18.57,
p b 0.001, 2p = 0.35. Post-hoc Tukey contrasts indicated a reliable
difference between articulatory suppression and the no interference
condition, p b 0.001, a signicant difference between articulatory
suppression and visual tracking, p b 0.001, and no signicant differ-
ence between visual tracking and the no interference condition,
p = 0.552. This nding suggests that only the articulatory suppres-
sion task interfered with short-term memory of temporal informa-
tion. The main effect of duration modality only approached
signicance, F(1, 35) = 3.60, p = 0.066, 2p = 0.09. Most crucially,
the interaction of duration modality and interference task was not
signicant, F(2, 70) = 0.16, p = 0.852, 2p b 0.01. Thus, in contrast
166 D. Bratzke et al. / Acta Psychologica 170 (2016) 163167
to the ndings of Rattat and Picard, the present results do not indi-
cate that visual tracking and articulatory suppression selectively in-
terfere with temporal discrimination of visual and auditory stimuli.2
Fig. 1 (lower panel) depicts mean B as a function of duration modal-
ity and interference task. This measure is scaled to range from 1 to
+1, with negative B values indicating a bias towards same responses
and positive ones indicating a bias towards different responses. In
general, mean B values were slightly negative, revealing a small bias to-
wards same responses. This nding is consistent with the one report-
ed by Rattat and Picard (2012). There was neither a main effect of
duration modality, F(1, 35) = 0.33, p = 0.567, 2p b 0.01, nor of interfer-
ence task, F(2, 70) = 0.15, p = 0.831, 2p b 0.01. The interaction was also
not signicant, F(2, 70) = 0.53, p = 0.590, 2p = 0.01.
4. Discussion
Rattat and Picard (2012) reported evidence for the notion that tem-
poral information is maintained in different modality-specic subsys-
tems of short-term memory. They found that visual tracking and
articulatory suppression selectively interfered with the maintenance
of temporal information conveyed either by the visual or the auditory
modality. Rattat and Picard's study was the rst and only report of
such a selective interference effect so far and, as outlined in the Intro-
duction, contrasts with several studies which suggest that temporal in-
formation is primarily encoded in the auditory domain. We therefore
aimed to assess the stability of this novel nding.
The present results do not show the selective interference effect re-
ported by Rattat and Picard (2012). The results differ from their results
in two ways. First, only articulatory suppression but not visual tracking
interfered with the maintenance of temporal information. Second and
most importantly, articulatory suppression impaired duration discrimi-
nation not only for auditory but also for visual durations. Therefore, the
present results are not in favor of a modality-specic representation of
temporal information in short-term memory but rather suggest that
the auditory subsystem of short-term memory (i.e., the phonological
loop) plays a crucial role in maintaining temporal information irrespec-
tive of input modality. This supports the notion of a common, modality-
unspecic representation of temporal information. One view consistent
with this conclusion is the crossmodal view of temporal encoding
(Guttman et al., 2005; Kanai et al., 2011). This view holds that temporal
information is primarily encoded in the auditory system, and thus tem-
poral information from other input modalities is obligatorily trans-
formed into an auditory representation.
However, the present results can also be reconciled with the notion
of an amodal, rather abstract encoding of temporal information, as is
usually assumed in traditional pacemaker-accumulator models (e.g.,
Rammsayer & Ulrich, 2005; Wearden et al., 2006). For example, it is con-
ceivable that an abstract representation (e.g., the verbal code short or
long) is sub-vocally rehearsed in the phonological loop during the re-
tention interval, and thus interferes with articulatory suppression but
not with visual-tracking. Thus, even though the crossmodal view ap-
pears to be an especially appealing account of the present results, the
abstract view provides a reasonable alternative explanation. It should
be noted, however, that the original pacemaker-accumulator model
lacks specic assumptions about the involvement of working memory
simply because multi-component views about working memory
2 necessary because with a within-subject design and the original identi-
To investigate whether the order of the sessions (visual durations rst vs. auditory du-
rations rst) affected discrimination sensitivity, we conducted an ANOVA on B with the
additional between-subjects factor order. In addition to the signicant main effect of inter-
ference task, this ANOVA revealed only a signicant interaction between duration modal-
ity and order, F(1, 34) = 6.06, p = 0.019, 2p = 0.15. This interaction indicated a practice
effect: Irrespective of duration modality, sensitivity was higher in the second session. Im-
portantly, the main effect of order and all other interactions including this factor were not
signicant (all ps N 0.05). Thus, the selective interference effect observed in this study was
independent of whether participants performed the visual or the auditory task rst.
(Baddeley & Hitch, 1974) were not yet developed when this model
was formulated (Creelman, 1962; Treisman, 1963). Only recently, re-
searchers have considered the role of working memory components
(e.g., the phonological loop) in the processing of temporal information
within the context of internal clock models (see e.g. Franssen et al.,
2006).
In contrast to Rattat and Picard (2012), we did not observe any inter-
ference effect of the visual tracking task on discrimination performance.
One could argue that the visual tracking task in the present study was
perhaps not difcult enough to produce an interference effect. However,
our visual tracking task was similar to the one used by Rattat and Picard
(2012) and we additionally monitored participants while performing
the task. More importantly, even if the visual tracking task was not dif-
cult enough to produce an interference effect, our results nevertheless
provide evidence against a modality-specic view, because articulatory
suppression impaired not only retention of auditory information but
also of visual information. This theoretically important nding is in
line with several other ndings concerning the coding of temporal in-
formation as mentioned above.
There are a few methodological differences between our and Rattat
and Picard's (2012) study which might have contributed to the discrep-
ant results and therefore merit further discussion. In contrast to Rattat
and Picard's study, our experiment included (a) the presentation of a
xation point during the last second of the retention interval, (b) perfor-
mance feedback after each block, (c) a larger range of visual than audi-
tory durations, and (d) a within- instead of a between-subjects design.
First, the xation point was employed to ensure that participants
could prepare for the second duration in a timely manner. That is, the
reappearance of the xation point enabled participants to redirect
their spatial attention to the central position and to stop repeating the
syllables, before the second duration was presented. Otherwise, visual
tracking could have selectively interfered with the encoding of the visu-
al second duration, and ongoing vocalizations could have selectively in-
terfered with the encoding of the auditory second duration, resulting in
the interference pattern reported by Rattat and Picard (2012). For a
clear interpretation of our results, it was thus crucial to protect the
encoding of the second duration from such possible interferences by
presenting the xation point. At the same time, however, this modica-
tion slightly shortened the duration of the interference tasks, which
might have reduced their effectiveness. It is unlikely, however, that
this would have produced the discrepancy between our results and
the ones observed by Rattat and Picard. Specically, even though a re-
duced effectiveness might explain why we did not observe any interfer-
ence effect of the visual tracking task, it is certainly not in line with our
nding that articulatory suppression impaired not only auditory but
also visual duration discrimination.
A second difference to Rattat and Picard's (2012) study is the perfor-
mance feedback that we provided after each block in order to promote
the participants' motivation. It has been shown that knowledge of re-
sults can improve timing performance (e.g., Franssen &
Vandierendonck, 2002). In contrast to our study, however, in these
studies feedback is usually rather specic and provided after each trial.
Most importantly, in our experiment the same kind of blockwise feed-
back was provided in all conditions. Therefore, it is unlikely that our in-
clusion of feedback contributed to the observed differential result
pattern.
The third modication of Rattat and Picard's (2012) original design,
a larger duration range for the visual than for the auditory task, became
cal duration ranges for the two modalities, we were not able to achieve
comparable performance levels for the two duration modalities. Actual-
ly, studies comparing visual and auditory duration perception often
compensate for modality-dependent differences in discrimination sen-
sitivity by employing larger duration differences between visual dura-
tion pairs than between auditory duration pairs (e.g., Bausenhart et al.,
2014; Grondin, 1993). Importantly, the results of the present study
 D. Bratzke et al. / Acta Psychologica 170 (2016) 163167
justify this modication. Specically, in the no interference condition,
we obtained similar performance levels for the two modalities, which
is a prerequisite for a meaningful interpretation of the results.
Fourth and nally, we employed a within- instead of a between-sub-
jects design in order to increase statistical power. In our study all partic-
ipants performed duration discrimination for both modalities and all
three interference conditions, whereas in Rattat and Picard's (2012)
study different groups of participants performed the different interfer-
ence conditions. One might speculate that the encoding of temporal in-
formation is exible and depends on the experimental context (see
Takahashi & Watanabe, 2012). Even though it is unclear how exactly
the different designs might have induced different encoding strategies
and thus led to the specic observed result patterns, the notion of ex-
ible encoding provides an interesting starting point for future research.
In conclusion, Rattat and Picard (2012) reported a modality-specic
interference effect on short-term memory of temporal information.
They found that visual tracking selectively interfered with the retention
of visual temporal information and articulatory suppression selectively
interfered with the retention of auditory temporal information. This re-
sult pattern supports a modality-specic view of short-term memory
for temporal information. Since this conclusion contrasts with several
studies, which suggest that temporal information is primarily encoded
in the auditory domain, we aimed to assess the stability of this nding.
Our results did not replicate the selective interference pattern but rather
indicate that articulatory suppression impairs short-term memory not
only for auditory but also for visual durations. This pattern might be ex-
plained by either a crossmodal or an abstract view of temporal
encoding, but it is not in line with the modality-specic view. Although
we have identied several possible factors (e.g., the xation point serv-
ing as a temporal marker for the end of the retention interval) that
might have contributed to the discrepancy between the present and
Rattat and Picard's results, further research is required to fully resolve
this discrepancy.
References
Aaronson, D., & Watts, B. (1987). Extensions of Grier's computational formulas for A and
B to below-chance performance. Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 439442 http://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.439.
Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual
Review of Psychology, 63, 129.
Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and
motivation (pp. 4790). New York: Academic Press.
Bausenhart, K. M., de la Rosa, M. D., & Ulrich, R. (2014). Multimodal integration of time:
Visual and auditory contributions to perceived duration and sensitivity.
Experimental Psychology, 61, 310322.
167
Bolognini, N., Papagno, C., Moroni, D., & Maravita, A. (2010). Tactile temporal processing
in the auditory cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 12011211.
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433436 http://doi.
org/10.1163/156856897X00357.
Bratzke, D., Seifried, T., & Ulrich, R. (2012). Perceptual learning in temporal discrimina-
tion: Asymmetric cross-modal transfer from audition to vision. Experimental Brain
Research, 221, 205210.
Buonomano, D. V., & Karmarkar, U. R. (2002). How do we tell time? The Neuroscientist, 8,
4251.
Creelman, C. D. (1962). Human discrimination of auditory stimuli. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 34, 582593.
Franssen, V., & Vandierendonck, A. (2002). Time estimation: Does the reference memory
mediate the effect of knowledge of results? Acta Psychologica, 109, 239267.
Franssen, V., Vandierendonck, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2006). Duration estimation and the pho-
nological loop: Articulatory suppression and irrelevant sounds. Psychological
Research, 70, 304316.
Gibbon, J., Church, R. M., & Meck, W. H. (1984). Scalar timing in memory. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, 423, 5277.
Grier, J. B. (1971). Nonparametric indexes for sensitivity and bias: Computing formulas.
Psychological Bulletin, 75, 424429.
Grondin, S. (1993). Duration discrimination of empty and lled intervals marked by audi-
tory and visual signals. Perception & Psychophysics, 54(3), 383394 http://doi.org/10.
3758/BF03205274.
Guttman, S. E., Gilroy, L. A., & Blake, R. (2005). Hearing what the eyes see: Auditory
encoding of visual temporal sequences. Psychological Science, 16, 228235.
Ivry, R. B., & Schlerf, J. E. (2008). Dedicated and intrinsic models of time perception. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 273280.
Kanai, R., Lloyd, H., Bueti, D., & Walsh, V. (2011). Modality-independent role of the prima-
ry auditory cortex in time estimation. Experimental Brain Research, 209, 465471.
Kleiner, M., Brainard, D. H., & Pelli, D. (2007). What's new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36.
ECVP Abstract Supplement.
Morey, R. (2008). Condence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau
(2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 6164.
Rammsayer, T., & Ulrich, R. (2005). No evidence for qualitative differences in the process-
ing of short and long temporal intervals. Acta Psychologica, 120, 141171.
Rattat, A. C., & Picard, D. (2012). Short-term memory for auditory and visual durations:
Evidence for selective interference effects. Psychological Research, 76, 3240.
Takahashi, K., & Watanabe, K. (2012). Short-term memory for event duration: Modality
specicity and goal dependency. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 16231631.
Treisman, M. (1963). Temporal discrimination and the indifference interval. Implications
for a model of the internal clock. Psychological Monographs, 77, 131.
Ulrich, R., Nitschke, J., & Rammsayer, T. (2006). Crossmodal temporal discrimination:
Assessing the predictions of a general pacemaker-counter model. Perception &
Psychophysics, 68, 11401152 http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193716.
Wearden, J. H., Edwards, H., Fakhri, M., & Percival, A. (1998). Why sounds are judged lon-
ger than lights: Application of a model of the internal clock in humans. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51B, 97120.
Wearden, J. H., Goodson, G., & Foran, K. (2007). Subjective shortening with lled and un-
lled auditory and visual intervals in humans? Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 60, 16161628.
Wearden, J. H., Todd, N. P. M., & Jones, L. A. (2006). When do auditory/visual differences in
duration judgements occur? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59,
17091724.
Welch, R. B., & Warren, D. H. (1980). Immediate perceptual response to intersensory dis-
crepancy. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 638667.