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

Abstract

Humans 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 Akdoğan 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. © Experimental Psychology Society 2022.