Table 1.
Summary of individual differences and pathophysiological distortions in time perception and time performance
| Basic timing procedures | Individual differences | Neurological condition(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Bisection function (point of subjective equality ≈ geometric mean) equal influence of both ‘short and long’ anchors | Some ‘normal’ participant's exhibit greater influence of the ‘short’ anchor on the point of subjective equality | Autism may lead to greater influence of the ‘short’ anchor duration (Allman et al., 2011a). Left temporal lobe resection (in contrast to the right temporal lobe) produces over-estimation and depression produces underestimation of duration (Vidalaki et al., 1999; Melgire et al., 2005; Balci et al., 2009; Gil and Droit-Volet, 2009) |
| Auditory/visual differences in point of subjective equality when trained in same session—explained by ‘memory mixing’ | Some ‘normal’ participants do not exhibit the auditory/visual difference in point of subjective equality | Participants at ‘high risk’ for schizophrenia as well as individuals with schizophrenia exhibit greater auditory/visual—point of subjective equality difference—perhaps due to a relative decrease in attention and/or clock speed for visual signals. This is in contrast to participants at risk for affective disorders and those with temporal lobe resection (Melgire et al., 2005; Penney et al., 2005; Carroll et al., 2008) |
| Ordinal comparison procedure with multiple standards | Individual differences in ‘memory mixing’, i.e. some ‘normal’ participant's display little or no ‘mixing’ of the different standards in memory | ‘Memory mixing’ effect can be influenced by feedback with differential effects of valence (e.g. positive versus negative feedback effects)—suggesting the involvement of dopamine (Gu and Meck, 2011b) |
| Peak-interval timing procedures with associated measures of accuracy (peak time) and precision (peak spread) | Individual differences in accuracy and precision (Rakitin et al., 1998; Meck, 2002a, b). Individual differences in ‘migration’ with multiple standard durations (Malapani et al., 1998) | Individual differences in peak time in ADHD and normal adults as a function of drug treatment (nicotine or haloperidol) and the probability of intertrial interval feedback. Dopamine-controlled regulation of clock speed is used to explain the drug and feedback effects (Levin et al., 1996; Lustig and Meck, 2005; Meck, 2005). Patients with Parkinson's disease tested OFF their levodopa medication exhibit large ‘migration’ effects—suggesting a role for dopamine in this form of ‘memory mixing’ (Malapani et al., 1998; Koch et al., 2005, 2008a) |
| Ambiguous tempo judgement paradigms | Large individual differences in the strength of beat based versus interval timing are observed (Grahn and McAuley, 2009) | Quinpirole (dopamine D2 receptor agonist) sensitized rats more readily engage in rhythmical (beat-based) timing behaviour reminiscent of the ‘non-functional’ fixation to time observed in obsessive–compulsive disorder (Gu et al., 2008, 2011a) |
| Time estimation up to 60 s | Individual differences in time perception due to spatial asymmetries and ‘normal’ levels of neglect in healthy individuals (Vicario et al., 2008; Grondin, 2010; Hurwitz and Danckert, 2011) | Underestimation of time in patients with unilateral neglect (Danckert et al., 2007) |