Time does not flow without language: Spatial distance affects temporal duration regardless of movement or direction

Much evidence has suggested that people conceive of time as flowing directionally in transverse space (e.g., from left to right for English speakers). However, this phenomenon has never been tested in a fully nonlinguistic paradigm where neither stimuli nor task use linguistic labels, which raises the possibility that time is directional only when reading/writing direction has been evoked. In the present study, English-speaking participants viewed a video where an actor sang a note while gesturing and reproduced the duration of the sung note by pressing a button. Results showed that the perceived duration of the note was increased by a long-distance gesture, relative to a short-distance gesture. This effect was equally strong for gestures moving from left to right and from right to left and was not dependent on gestures depicting movement through space; a weaker version of the effect emerged with static gestures depicting spatial distance. Since both our gesture stimuli and temporal reproduction task were nonlinguistic, we conclude that the spatial representation of time is nondirectional: Movement contributes, but is not necessary, to the representation of temporal information in a transverse timeline.     

Disruption of writing by background speech: Does sound source location and number of voices matter?

It is not unusual that people have to write in an environment where background speech is present. Background speech can vary in both speech intelligibility and location of the sound source. Earlier research has shown disruptive effects of background speech on writing performance. To expand and reinforce this knowledge, the present study investigated the role of number of voices and sound source location in the relation between background speech and writing performance. Participants wrote texts in quiet or in background speech consisting of one or seven voices talking simultaneously located in front of or behind them. Overall, one voice was more disruptive than seven voices talking simultaneously. Self‐reports showed that sound from the front was more disruptive compared with sound from behind. Results are in line with theory of interference‐by‐process, attentional capture, and the cross‐modal theory of attention. The relevance of the results for open‐office environments is discussed.     

How does information from low and high spatial frequencies interact during scene categorization?

Current models of visual perception suggest that, during scene categorization, low spatial frequencies (LSF) are rapidly processed and activate plausible interpretations of visual input. This coarse analysis would be used to guide subsequent processing of high spatial frequencies (HSF). The present study aimed to further examine how information from LSF and HSF interact and influence each other during scene categorization. In a first experimental session, participants had to categorize LSF and HSF filtered scenes belonging to two different semantic categories (artificial vs. natural). In a second experimental session, we used hybrid scenes as stimuli made by combining LSF and HSF from two different scenes which were semantically similar or dissimilar. Half of the participants categorized LSF scenes in hybrids, and the other half categorized HSF scenes in hybrids. Stimuli were presented for 30 or 100?ms. Session 1 results showed better performance for LSF than HSF scene categorization. Session 2 scene categorization was faster when participants attended and categorized LSF than HSF scene in hybrids. The semantic interference of a semantically dissimilar HSF scene on LSF scene categorization was greater than the semantic interference of a semantically dissimilar LSF scene on HSF scene categorization, irrespective of exposure duration. These results suggest a LSF advantage for scene categorization, and highlight the prominent role of HSF information when there is uncertainty about the visual stimulus, in order to disentangle between alternative interpretations.