Publication:
Humans can monitor trial-based but not global timing errors: evidence for relative judgements in temporal error monitoring

dc.contributor.coauthorN/A
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Psychology
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Psychology
dc.contributor.kuauthorÖztel, Tutku
dc.contributor.kuauthorBalcı, Fuat
dc.contributor.kuprofileTeaching Faculty
dc.contributor.kuprofileFaculty Member
dc.contributor.otherDepartment of Psychology
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteCollege of Social Sciences and Humanities
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteCollege of Social Sciences and Humanities
dc.contributor.yokidN/A
dc.contributor.yokid51269
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-09T23:54:14Z
dc.description.abstractHumans can monitor the magnitude and direction of their temporal errors in individual trials. Based on the predictions of our model of temporal error monitoring that rely on a relative comparison of internal clock readings, we predict that participants would monitor their timing errors in individual trials, but not the direction of their global timing errors without external feedback. One study has indeed found that accurate self-monitoring of average timing biases required external feedback with directional information. The current study investigates how different sources of feedback (i.e., internal or external) affect performance in the self-monitoring of average timing bias. Four groups of participants were tested in a temporal reproduction task. Participants in the self-evaluation condition evaluated the direction and size of their time reproduction errors in individual trials. In the accurate feedback condition, participants received explicit trial-based feedback regarding the direction of their error while participants in the partially accurate feedback condition received trial-based feedback according to the accuracy of short-long judgements of another participant in the self-evaluation condition. Participants in the control condition reproduced only the target duration without making any judgements regarding their reproduction performance or receiving any external feedback about it. Results showed that while participants accurately monitor timing errors in individual trials, in none of the experimental conditions were they more accurate than the chance level in terms of evaluating the direction of their average temporal bias. We discuss these results in terms of the temporal error monitoring model introduced by Akdogan and Balcı. Thus, our findings suggest that external directional feedback does not have any informational value for global temporal bias judgements above and beyond internal self-monitoring.
dc.description.indexedbyWoS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.indexedbyPubMed
dc.description.openaccessNO
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/17470218221145314
dc.identifier.eissn1747-0226
dc.identifier.issn1747-0218
dc.identifier.quartileQ3
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85145416182
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17470218221145314
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/15164
dc.identifier.wos905860200001
dc.keywordsTemporal error monitoring
dc.keywordsTemporal bias
dc.keywordsGlobal judgements
dc.keywordsConfidence rating
dc.keywordsFeedback
dc.keywordsMetacognition
dc.keywordsComputation
dc.keywordsAwareness
dc.keywordsMemory
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherSage
dc.sourceQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
dc.subjectPsychology
dc.subjectBiological psychology
dc.subjectExperimental psychology
dc.titleHumans can monitor trial-based but not global timing errors: evidence for relative judgements in temporal error monitoring
dc.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.contributor.authorid0000-0002-6474-5955
local.contributor.authorid0000-0003-3390-9352
local.contributor.kuauthorÖztel, Tutku
local.contributor.kuauthorBalcı, Fuat
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationd5fc0361-3a0a-4b96-bf2e-5cd6b2b0b08c
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryd5fc0361-3a0a-4b96-bf2e-5cd6b2b0b08c

Files