Search

New analyses of the data in this study (Salet et al., 2021, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01873-x) have led us to reinterpret our main finding. Previously, we had attributed better performance for targets appearing at regular intervals versus irregular intervals to "temporal statistical learning." That is, we surmised that this benefit for the regular intervals arises because participants implicitly distilled the regular 3000 ms interval from the otherwise variable environment (i.e., irregular intervals) to predict future (regular) targets. The analyses presented in this Addendum, however, show that this benefit can be attributed to ongoing "temporal preparation" rather than temporal statistical learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Temporal preparation is the cognitive function that takes place when anticipating future events. This is commonly considered to involve a process that maximizes preparation at time points that yield a high hazard. However, despite their prominence in the literature, hazard-based theories fail to explain the full range of empirical preparation phenomena. Here, we present the formalized multiple trace theory of temporal preparation (f MTP), an integrative model which develops the alternative perspective that temporal preparation results from associative learning. f MTP builds on established computational principles from the domains of interval timing, motor planning, and associative memory. In f MTP, temporal preparation results from associative learning between a representation of time on the one hand and inhibitory and activating motor units on the other hand. Simulations demonstrate that f MTP can explain phenomena across a range of time scales, from sequential effects operating on a time scale of seconds to long-term memory effects occurring over weeks. We contrast f MTP with models that rely on the hazard function and show that f MTP's learning mechanisms are essential to capture the full range of empirical effects. In a critical experiment using a Gaussian distribution of foreperiods, we show the data to be consistent with f MTP's predictions and to deviate from the hazard function. Additionally, we demonstrate how changing f MTP's parameters can account for participant-to-participant variations in preparation. In sum, with f MTP we put forward a unifying computational framework that explains a family of phenomena in temporal preparation that cannot be jointly explained by conventional theoretical frameworks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Humans can automatically detect and learn to exploit repeated aspects (regularities) of the environment. Timing research suggests that such learning is not only used to anticipate what will happen, but also when it will happen. However, in timing experiments, the intervals to be timed are presented in isolation from other stimuli and explicitly cued, contrasting with naturalistic environments in which intervals are embedded in a constant stream of events and individuals are hardly aware of them. It is unclear whether laboratory findings from timing research translate to a more ecologically valid, implicit environment. Here we show in a game-like experiment, specifically designed to measure naturalistic behavior, that participants implicitly use regular intervals to anticipate future events, even when these intervals are constantly interrupted by irregular yet behaviorally relevant events. This finding extends previous research by showing that individuals not only detect such regularities but can also use this knowledge to decide when to act in a complex environment. Furthermore, this finding demonstrates that this type of learning can occur independently from the ordinal sequence of motor actions, which contrasts this work with earlier motor learning studies. Taken together, our results demonstrate that regularities in the time between events are implicitly monitored and used to predict and act on what happens when, thereby showing that laboratory findings from timing research can generalize to naturalistic environments. Additionally, with the development of our game-like experiment, we demonstrate an approach to test cognitive theories in less controlled, ecologically more valid environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]