Differentiating the reported time of intent and action on the basis of temporal binding behaviors and confidence ratings
Name:
isham_wall_16_r2_clean2.pdf
Size:
1.026Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Accepted Manuscript
Issue Date
2022-04-14Keywords
Anti-bindingConfidence ratings
Libet
Structural knowledge
Temporal binding
Timing of action
Timing of intent
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLCCitation
Isham, E. A., & Wall, T. A. (2022). Differentiating the reported time of intent and action on the basis of temporal binding behaviors and confidence ratings. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics.Rights
© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2022.Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
The reported time of intent (W) and the reported time of action (M) have been used as indices of consciousness during simple voluntary actions. However, it is unclear whether W is exclusively inferred from M. Past studies have suggested that W is inferred from M by demonstrating that W varies when judged in conjunction with M. The current study offers counterevidence by showing that W is independent of M under some circumstances related to temporal binding. Participants performed a voluntary keypress that elicited a tone (briefly delayed at 5 and 60 ms). Subsequently, they reported W or M and indicated the confidence of their report. Binding strength was measured as the extent to which the W and M reports gravitated toward the time of the tone. Moreover, the binding strength was evaluated in conjunction with time course and knowledge to assess whether the strength increases due to repeated exposure or weakens if informed of the tone delay manipulation, respectively. We observed that the binding strength associated with W increased over time, and being informed of the tone manipulation did not affect W’s binding behaviors. In contrast, M’s binding behaviors did not change over time but being informed of the tone manipulation may release M from binding. The corresponding confidence ratings associated with W were uniform whereas those associated with M fluctuated over time. Collectively, the results suggest that binding behaviors associated with W and M differ, and that W is not simply derived from M.Note
12 month embargo; published: 14 April 2022ISSN
1943-3921EISSN
1943-393XVersion
Final accepted manuscriptae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.3758/s13414-022-02479-2