% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Riemer:164817,
      author       = {Riemer, Martin and Vieweg, Paula and van Rijn, Hedderik and
                      Wolbers, Thomas},
      title        = {{R}educing the tendency for chronometric counting in
                      duration discrimination tasks},
      journal      = {Attention, perception, $\&$ psychophysics},
      volume       = {84},
      number       = {8},
      issn         = {0031-5117},
      address      = {New York, NY},
      publisher    = {Springer},
      reportid     = {DZNE-2022-01261},
      pages        = {2641-2654},
      year         = {2022},
      note         = {CC BY},
      abstract     = {Chronometric counting is a prevalent issue in the study of
                      human time perception as it reduces the construct validity
                      of tasks and can conceal existing timing deficits. Several
                      methods have been proposed to prevent counting strategies,
                      but the factors promoting those strategies in specific tasks
                      are largely uninvestigated. Here, we modified a classical
                      two-interval duration discrimination task in two aspects
                      that could affect the tendency to apply counting strategies.
                      We removed the pause between the two intervals and changed
                      the task instructions: Participants decided whether a short
                      event occurred in the first or in the second half of a
                      reference duration. In Experiment 1, both classical and
                      modified task versions were performed under timing
                      conditions, in which participants were asked not to count,
                      and counting conditions, in which counting was explicitly
                      instructed. The task modifications led to (i) a general
                      decrease in judgment precision, (ii) a shift of the point of
                      subjective equality, and (iii) a counting-related increase
                      in reaction times, suggesting enhanced cognitive effort of
                      counting during the modified task version. Precision in the
                      two task versions was not differently affected by instructed
                      counting. Experiment 2 demonstrates that—in the absence of
                      any counting-related instructions—participants are less
                      likely to engage in spontaneous counting in the modified
                      task version. These results enhance our understanding of the
                      two-interval duration discrimination task and demonstrate
                      that the modifications tested here—although they do not
                      significantly reduce the effectiveness of instructed
                      counting—can diminish the spontaneous tendency to adopt
                      counting strategies.},
      keywords     = {Humans / Time Perception / Reaction Time / Judgment / Time
                      Factors},
      cin          = {AG Wolbers},
      ddc          = {150},
      cid          = {I:(DE-2719)1310002},
      pnm          = {353 - Clinical and Health Care Research (POF4-353)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:35701662},
      pmc          = {pmc:PMC9630250},
      doi          = {10.3758/s13414-022-02523-1},
      url          = {https://pub.dzne.de/record/164817},
}