Understanding the Effects of Sensory Deprivation on the Perception of Time

Background
The goal of this research was to explore how senses affect the perception of time and to test ones ability to accurately recall
time when deprived of one or more sense. This research aimed at building a greater understanding of how cross sensory
interactions affect our time perception. Additionally, the research was conducted within the context of the neurological
condition Synaesthesia. In Synaesthesia a subject will experience one sense through another via cross firing of signals in the
brain (Baron-Cohen and Harrison, 1997). Current research lacks detailed explanation for the mechanisms at play, and the
conditions only recently accepted status subsequently meant research to date has provided more questions than answers. There
are many expressions of the condition (Simner et al., 2006,), but spatial-temporal synaesthesia is relevant to this research as the
subject experiences time as space, usually perceived in the visual spectrum as clocks, lines and number arranged around them.
The arrangement of the visual time-space is unique to the individual (Simner, Mayo, & Spiller, 2009). This research queries
whether it may be possible to reverse the sensory relationship to time, to modify perceived time via other sensory cues.

This study has aimed at creating an empirical understanding of perceived time to be used in future research. The initial research
proposal made mention of a proposed distinction between different internal timing mechanisms that operate independently but
make up our general time keeping. (Rammsayer and Troche, 2014). This contrasts with the generally accepted common timing
theory. (Carlson and Feinberg, 1970). To the knowledge of the researcher there are no current publications exploring the
potential links between synaesthesia and perceived time. This research represents a first attempt at exploring a relationship
between temporal perception and Synaesthesia.

Methodology
The research proposal listed two main methods for testing, both of which were based on duration discrimination. The first test
type whereby a stimulus is provided to the subject via auditory and visual cues. These cues are provided by an Arduino based
hardware platform developed specifically for this research. The subjects are asked to discern how long they think these stimuli
were active for. This was the main testing method.

The key change in the proposed testing model was to perform the test twice on each subject, the first test was a control test that
subjected participants to both the audio and visual cue for time discrimination. In the following test, subjects were subject to
only one sensory cue, depriving them of either sight or sound. The second test was performed the following day with the aim
that participants would not remember the exact times they wrote before.

The second proposed testing model was similar to the first but included button for the participants to press when they thought a
certain amount of time had passed, with the sensory cues only operating for a brief period of time as a cue. This test model was
deemed to introduce too many human error elements and would therefore result in less reliable data sets. Subsequently this
model was dropped from the research.

As mentioned above the first testing model was relied on for data collection, with a second iteration being introduced later in
testing to create a data set for comparison within the study. This model used 10 pulses or time increments that ran the
corresponding sensory cues for the duration of the pulse. These pulses increased in length progressively with each additional
pulse. It appeared that longer durations (exceeding 20 s approximately) induced subject fatigue and the monotonic increase in
time length created an anticipation which could affect the subjects internal count. Considering this, the test model was changed
so that the pulse durations were randomised, and ran for shorter lengths to address subject fatigue and keep participants
engaged. Four tests were conducted with the original linear method before introducing a second iteration of the test model.

The initial proposal was not intended to test against gender, age or vocation. Early in the study it became apparent that future
test models should account for these variable as they have unexpected effects on test result. For instance, a musician may keep a
more precise count in their head. (Albert & Bell, 2002).

Data Analysis
Figure 1 shows a graph of average estimation error vs stimulus duration from the first round of testing. In this round of testing
subjects experienced a monotonically increasing stimulus duration. There was a trend towards increasing under-estimation of
stimulus duration as the duration increased. This effect decreases when a light only stimulus is used. Several possibilities exist as
to what variables affect internal counting; listener fatigue, environmental distractions, pattern compensation behaviours, or
heightened emotional state (excitement) could all be contributing factors.
 Figure 1: Graph of estimation error vs stimulus duration, averaged across all test subjects for the first test condition i.e. monotonically
increasing stimulus duration.

Figure 2 shows a graph of estimation error vs stimulation duration for the second round of testing. In these tests the stimulus
durations were randomised to minimize fatigue and pattern compensation behaviours. It is interesting to observe that regardless of
this change, the increasing underestimation of stimulus duration with duration increase is still present.

Figure 2: Average estimation error vs. stimulus duration for the second test protocol, i.e. randomised stimulus duration.

A greater number of subjects were tested in this round of testing (N=9 vs N=4). Light Stimulus generally resulted in shorter
duration estimations: This could be because of heightened attention to detail. During testing, when participants sat the Light
only/audio deprivation element they focused entirely on the test device and appeared more engaged. Its reasonable to think that
this could result from the need to focus attention to a point and shut out external stimulus.

Audio Stimulus generally resulted in higher accuracy: When participants were subject to only sound, the prevailing trend was
more accuracy, meaning results were closer to actual pulse times. This could be as result of not being required to focus explicitly
on the test device as sound from a piezo speaker is an ambient prompt oppose to light from an LED which requires focused
attention. From this one could propose that a less focused state or operating on feeling rather than counting internally may result
in a more accurate discrimination. This observation correlates with data from a study by Rammsayer, Borter, & Troche that
showed higher degree of duration discrimination accuracy when using auditory stimulus. (Rammsayer, Borter, & Troche, 2015).

Smaller time increments appeared to be estimated more accurately: The smallest time increments in both variations of the test
model showed the least amount of deviation. This also correlates with Rammsayer and Troches findings that time increments in
the sub second range are dealt with by separate timing mechanism. (Rammsayer and Troche, 2014).
Longer time increments suffered the greatest deviations, and were least accurate: This follows with observations by Rammsayer
and Troche that sub second duration discriminations are subject to a separating timing mechanism albeit on the opposite end of the
theoretical spectrum. It stands to reason that if a separate timing mechanism accounts for small timing increments and is largely
unaffected by neural inhibitors or external stimulus (Rammsayer and Troche, 2014). that the timing mechanism responsible for
long durations and concurrently, memory, would be more susceptible to corruption or imprecise recording.

Conclusions
Audio stimulus accounts for greater accuracy when accounting for smaller increments of time, approximately 10 seconds or less.
Both visual and auditory stimulus duration suffered the same level of decay in underestimation of duration length regardless of
whether the time increments were implemented as monotonic increases or randomized times.

Given the limitations in sound duration sample size, general sample size and unaccounted variables the subsequent data collection
has unexpected variances that are difficult to explain without a larger body of test subjects. Many untested variables result in a
data set that could be considered incomplete.

Future Work
In future testing, many additional factors could be explored. For example, whether a participant had experience as a musician or
other timing critical work, if a subject has prior damage to hearing or sight. The potential for age to affect results is also likely
considering the relative experience of time between old and young people. (Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999). To
investigate these factors, future studies would have to greatly increase sample size and control for variables such as age, job,
gender, musical experience etc.

Future tests would also use a more robust duration discrimination device and test multiple styles of duration discrimination to
eliminate outliers created by subjects fatigued from extended periods of testing. This could also be aided by increasing the interval
time between pulses used in this research model.

This study raised some interesting questions around the speed of internal counting in perceived time and how this speed is
affected. The results correlated in some respects with Rammsayer and Troche 2014 study about separate timing mechanisms. It
also raises questions in regards to that particular study about the relationship between auto-sensory timing and cognitive timing
and how they interface when accounting for time over longer durations.

Ultimately this study failed to establish whether there was an explicit link between synaesthesia and temporal resolution, and
whether this relationship could be reversed. Future research should aim at establishing this relationship more explicitly. This
would require testing actual spatial-temporal synethetes and further researching to establish more accurate testing parameters for
study.

References:
Baron-Cohen, Simon (Ed); Harrison, John E. (Ed). Malden: Blackwell Publishing Synaesthesia: Classic and contemporary readings.
(1997). xiii 281 pp.

Simner, J., Mulvenna, C., Sagiv, N., Tsakanikos, E., Witherby, S. A., Fraser, C., Ward, J. (2006). Synaesthesia: The prevalence of
atypical cross-modal experiences. Perception, 35(8), 1024-1033. doi:10.1068/p5469

Simner, J., Mayo, N., & Spiller, M. (2009). A foundation for savantism? Visuo-spatial synaesthetes present with cognitive
benefits. Cortex, 45(10), 1246-1260. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2009.07.007

Rammsayer T. H., Troche S. J. (2014). In search of the internal structure of the processes underlying interval timing in the sub-
second and second range: a confirmatory factor analysis approach. Acta Psychol. 147 6874. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.05.004

Albert, S., & Bell, G. G. (2002). Timing and Music. The Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 574. doi:10.2307/4134404

Rammsayer, T. H., Borter, N., & Troche, S. J. (2015). Visual-auditory differences in duration discrimination of intervals in the
subsecond and second range. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4620148/#B37

Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American
Psychologist, 54(3), 165-181. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.54.3.165
Appendix
Table 1: Table of raw data from Test 1

Subject Age Gender Stimulus 3.5 4.8 7.5 10 12.8 14.5 17.2 20 26 30
1 19 f Base 4.5 5 7 11.3 14 18 20 21.8 27 31.5
Base Error 1 0.2 -0.5 1.3 1.2 3.5 2.8 1.8 1 1.5
Sound 4 5 7 9 12 13 16 19 25 28
Sound Error 0.5 0.2 -0.5 -1 -0.8 -1.5 -1.2 -1 -1 -2
Error Change -0.5 0 0 -2.3 -2 -5 -4 -2.8 -2 -3.5
2 27 m Base 3.5 4 7 10 13 15 18 19.5 24 30
Base Error 0 -0.8 -0.5 0 0.2 0.5 0.8 -0.5 -2 0
Light 4 4 8 10 15 15 18 23 29 32
Light Error 0.5 -0.8 0.5 0 2.2 0.5 0.8 3 3 2
Error Change 0.5 0 1 0 2 0 0 3.5 5 2
3 67 m Base 7 7 10 12 15 17 20 23 29 33
Base Error 3.5 2.2 2.5 2 2.2 2.5 2.8 3 3 3
Light 4 6 9 12 15.5 17 20 23 30.5 34
Light Error 0.5 1.2 1.5 2 2.7 2.5 2.8 3 4.5 4
Error Change -3 -1 -1 0 0.5 0 0 0 1.5 1
4 30 m Base 3 5 7.7 8 11.5 12.1 14.1 17 19 23
Base Error -0.5 0.2 0.2 -2 -1.3 -2.4 -3.1 -3 -7 -7
Light 3.5 5 6.5 8.5 11.2 13.1 15.5 16.5 18.1 21
Light Error 0 0.2 -1 -1.5 -1.6 -1.4 -1.7 -3.5 -7.9 -9
Error Change 0.5 0 -1.2 0.5 -0.3 1 1.4 -0.5 -0.9 -2
Average Base Error 1 0.45 0.425 0.325 0.575 1.025 0.825 0.325 -1.25 -0.625

Average Light Error 0.3333 0.2 0.3333 0.1667 1.1 0.5333 0.6333 0.8333 -0.1333 -1
Average Sound Error 0.5 0.2 -0.5 -1 -0.8 -1.5 -1.2 -1 -1 -2
Table 2: Table of raw data for Test 2

Person Age Gender Stimulus 3.5 4.8 4 7.5 12.5 14.5 9 8.5 1.5 23
5 60 f Base 4 5 5 7.5 11 13 8 8 2 19.5
Base Error 0.5 0.2 1 0 -1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0.5 -3.5
Light 4 5 5 7 11.5 13 8.5 8 2 19
Light Error 0.5 0.2 1 -0.5 -1 -1.5 -0.5 -0.5 0.5 -4
Error Change 0 0 0 -0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 -0.5
6 28 m Base 5 6 4 8 13 15 9 9 1.5 18
Base Error 1.5 1.2 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 -5
Sound 4 5 4.5 8 12.5 13.5 9.5 7.7 1 21
Sound Error 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.5 0 -1 0.5 -0.8 -0.5 -2
Error Change -1 -1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1.5 0.5 -1.3 -0.5 3
7 20 m Base 3 4.5 4 7.5 13 14.5 9 9 1.5 22
Base Error -0.5 -0.3 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 -1
Light 3.5 4.5 4 7.5 13 15 10 9 1.5 23
Light Error 0 -0.3 0 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0 0
Error Change 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 0 0 1
8 24 m Base 4 5 4 8 12 15 9 9 1 20
Base Error 0.5 0.2 0 0.5 -0.5 0.5 0 0.5 -0.5 -3
Light 4 5 5 8 13 15 9 8 1.5 22
Light Error 0.5 0.2 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 -0.5 0 -1
Error Change 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -1 0.5 2
9 28 m Base 3 4.5 4 7 11 13 8 7 0.5 18
Base Error -0.5 -0.3 0 -0.5 -1.5 -1.5 -1 -1.5 -1 -5
Light 3 5 4 8 11 13.5 9 8 1 20
Light Error -0.5 0.2 0 0.5 -1.5 -1 0 -0.5 -0.5 -3
Error Change 0 0.5 0 1 0 0.5 1 1 0.5 2
10 26 m Base 3.5 5 4 7 12.5 14 9 8 1.5 20
Base Error 0 0.2 0 -0.5 0 -0.5 0 -0.5 0 -3
Sound 3.5 4 4 7.5 12 14.5 9 8.5 1.5 21
Sound Error 0 -0.8 0 0 -0.5 0 0 0 0 -2
Error Change 0 -1 0 0.5 -0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 1
11 24 m Base 4.3 5.5 5 8 14 17 10.5 10 2 25
Base Error 0.8 0.7 1 0.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 2
Sound 4 5 5 8 13 15 10 9.5 1 21
 Sound Error 0.5 0.2 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 -0.5 -2
Error Change -0.3 -0.5 0 0 -1 -2 -0.5 -0.5 -1 -4
12 27 f Base 4 5 5 8 12 14 8.5 8 1 20
Base Error 0.5 0.2 1 0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -3
Light 4 5 5 8 12.5 14 9 8.5 1 20
Light Error 0.5 0.2 1 0.5 0 -0.5 0 0 -0.5 -3
Error Change 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0 0
13 24 m Base 3 4 3 5 8 10 6 6 1 15
Base Error -0.5 -0.8 -1 -2.5 -4.5 -4.5 -3 -2.5 -0.5 -8
Light 2.5 3 3 4 6.5 6.5 4.5 4.5 1 10
Light Error -1 -1.8 -1 -3.5 -6 -8 -4.5 -4 -0.5 -13
Error Change -0.5 -1 0 -1 -1.5 -3.5 -1.5 -1.5 0 -5
- - - - - - -
Base Error Average 0.2556 0.1444 0.2222 0.1667 0.6667 0.5556 0.4444 0.2778 0.1667 3.2778
Base Error Std Dev 0.6894 0.5833 0.6667 0.9682 1.7321 1.9112 1.2105 1.2019 0.5 2.7739
Light Error Average -0.1 -0.3 0.2 -0.4 -1.3 -1.7 -0.7 -0.9 -0.3 -4
Sound Error - - -
Average 0.3333 0.1333 0.5 0.3333 0 0.1667 0.5 0.0667 0.3333 -2
Light Error Change - - - - -
Average 0 0.0833 0.1667 0.0833 0.0833 0.4167 0.25 0.1667 0.1667 0.0833
Sound Error - - - -
Change Average 0.4333 0.8333 0.1667 0.1667 0.6667 -1 0 0.4333 -0.5 0