Advertisement

Causality Guides Time Perception

  • Andrea Desantis
  • Marc Buehner
Chapter

Abstract

Desantis and Buehner discuss the relation between time perception and causality. Classically, it has been considered that causality is partly inferred from the temporal relations between events. For instance, people are more likely to report two events as causally linked if they follow each other closely in time than if they are separated by a long delay. The authors review and discuss a complimentary literature proposing that time perception is in turn guided by people’s assumptions about the causal connection between events. Time perception would be shaped by the combination of sensory and internal information such as our prior causal expectations. The authors also discuss how Bayesian models of uncertainty reduction may offer an exploratory hypothesis to understand how causality structures time perception.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Karolina Moutsopoulou for her comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Bechlivanidis, C., & Lagnado, D. (2013). Does the “why” tell us the “when”? Psychological Science, 24, 1563–1572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechlivanidis, C., & Lagnado, D. A. (2016). Time reordered: Causal perception guides the interpretation of temporal order. Cognition, 146, 58–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blakemore, S. J., Wolpert, D. M., & Frith, C. D. (2002). Abnormalities in the awareness of action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 237–242. https://doi.org/16/S1364-6613(02)01907-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buehner, M. J. (2005). Contiguity and covariation in human causal inference. Animal Learning & Behavior, 33, 230–238.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buehner, M. J. (2012). Understanding the past, predicting the future: Causation, not intentional action, is the root of temporal binding. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1490–1497.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612444612 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buehner, M. J., & Humphreys, G. R. (2009). Causal binding of actions to their effects. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1221–1228.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02435.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buehner, M. J., & Humphreys, G. R. (2010). Causal contraction. Psychological Science, 21(1), 44–48.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609354735 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, Y.-C., & Spence, C. (2017). Assessing the role of the ‘Unity Assumption’ on multisensory integration: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 445.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cravo, A. M., Claessens, P. M. E., & Baldo, M. V. C. (2009). Voluntary action and causality in temporal binding. Experimental Brain Research, 199, 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cravo, A. M., Claessens, P. M. E., & Baldo, M. V. C. (2011). The relation between action, predictability and temporal contiguity in temporal binding. Acta Psychologica, 136(1), 157–166. https://doi.org/16/j.actpsy.2010.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dainton, B. (2017, Fall). Temporal consciousness. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/consciousness-temporal/
  12. Desantis, A., & Haggard, P. (2016a). Action-outcome learning and prediction shape the window of simultaneity of audiovisual outcomes. Cognition, 153, 33–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.03.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Desantis, A., & Haggard, P. (2016b). How actions shape perception: Learning action-outcome relations and predicting sensory outcomes promote audio-visual temporal binding. Scientific Reports, 6.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39086
  14. Desantis, A., Haggard, P., Ikegaya, Y., & Hagura, N. (2018). Specificity of action selection modulates the perceived temporal order of action and sensory events. Experimental Brain Research, 236(8), 2157–2164.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5292-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Desantis, A., Hughes, G., & Waszak, F. (2012). Intentional binding is driven by the mere presence of an action and not by motor prediction. PLoS One, 7(1), e29557.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Desantis, A., Roussel, C., & Waszak, F. (2011). On the influence of causal beliefs on the feeling of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(4), 1211–1220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Desantis, A., Waszak, F., Moutsopoulou, K., & Haggard, P. (2016). How action structures time: About the perceived temporal order of action and predicted outcomes. Cognition, 146(Suppl. C), 100–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.08.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dogge, M., Schaap, M., Custers, R., Wegner, D. M., & Aarts, H. (2012). When moving without volition: Implied self-causation enhances binding strength between involuntary actions and effects. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 501–506.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.10.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eagleman, D. M., & Holcombe, A. O. (2002). Causality and the perception of time. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(8), 323–325.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01945-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Faro, D., Leclerc, F., & Hastie, R. (2005). Perceived causality as a cue to temporal distance. Psychological Science, 16, 673–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farrer, C., Valentin, G., & Hupé, J. M. (2013). The time windows of the sense of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(4), 1431–1441.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fletcher, P. C., & Frith, C. D. (2009). Perceiving is believing: A Bayesian approach to explaining the positive symptoms of schizophrenia. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(1), 48–58.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fujisaki, W., Shimojo, S., Kashino, M., & Nishida, S. (2004). Recalibration of audiovisual simultaneity. Nature Neuroscience, 7(7), 773–778.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grondin, S. (2010). Timing and time perception: A review of recent behavioral and neuroscience findings and theoretical directions. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(3), 561–582.  https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.3.561 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haering, C., & Kiesel, A. (2012). Mine is earlier than yours: Causal beliefs influence the perceived time of action effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 393.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haering, C., & Kiesel, A. (2014). Intentional Binding is independent of the validity of the action effect’s identity. Acta Psychologica, 152, 109–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.07.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haggard, P., Clark, S., & Kalogeras, J. (2002). Voluntary action and conscious awareness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(4), 382–385.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nn827 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heron, J., Hanson, J. V. M., & Whitaker, D. (2009). Effect before cause: Supramodal recalibration of sensorimotor timing. PLoS One, 4(11), e7681.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007681 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hughes, G., Desantis, A., & Waszak, F. (2013). Mechanisms of intentional binding and sensory attenuation: The role of temporal prediction, temporal control, identity prediction, and motor prediction. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 133–151.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028566 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hume, D. (1985). A treatise of human nature. Penguin Books Limited. Retrieved from https://books.google.fr/books?id=JPCgWYSZCUwC
  31. Jazayeri, M., & Shadlen, M. N. (2010). Temporal context calibrates interval timing. Nature Neuroscience, 13(8), 1020–1026.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2590 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kawabe, T., Roseboom, W., & Nishida, S. (2013). The sense of agency is action-effect causality perception based on cross-modal grouping. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1763), 20130991.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.0991 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keetels, M., & Vroomen, J. (2012). Exposure to delayed visual feedback of the hand changes motor-sensory synchrony perception. Experimental Brain Research. Experimentelle Hirnforschung. Experimentation Cerebrale, 219(4), 431–440.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3081-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kersten, D., Mamassian, P., & Yuille, A. (2004). Object perception as Bayesian inference. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 271–304.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Körding, K. P., Beierholm, U., Ma, W. J., Quartz, S., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Shams, L. (2007). Causal inference in multisensory perception. PLoS One, 2(9), e943.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leslie, A. M., & Keeble, S. (1987). Do six-month-old infants perceive causality? Cognition, 25(3), 265–288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(87)80006-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mamassian, P., Landy, M., & Maloney, L. T. (2002). Bayesian modelling of visual perception. In Probabilistic models of the brain: Perception and neural function (pp. 13–36). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Mellor, D. H. (1985). Real time. CUP Archive.Google Scholar
  39. Michotte, A. (1941). La causalité physique est-elle une donnée phénoménale? Tijdschrift Voor Philosophie, 3(2), 290–328.Google Scholar
  40. Michotte, A. (1946). La perception de la causalité. Editions de l’Institut Supérieur de Philosophie.Google Scholar
  41. Oakes, L. M. (1994). Development of infants’ use of continuity cues in their perception of causality. Developmental Psychology, 30(6), 869–879.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.6.869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Petzschner, F. H., Glasauer, S., & Stephan, K. E. (2015). A Bayesian perspective on magnitude estimation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(5), 285–293.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Phillips, I. (2014). Experience of and in time. Philosophy Compass, 9(2), 131–144.  https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rankin, M. L., & McCormack, T. (2013). The temporal priority principle: At what age does this develop? Frontiers in Psychology, 4.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00178
  45. Rhodes, D. (2015). Bayesian time perception. PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
  46. Rohde, M., & Ernst, M. O. (2013). To lead and to lag—Forward and backward recalibration of perceived visuo-motor simultaneity. Frontiers in Psychology, 3.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00599
  47. Shanks, D. R., Pearson, S. M., & Dickinson, A. (1989). Temporal contiguity and the judgement of causality by human subjects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B, 41(2), 139–159.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748908401189 Google Scholar
  48. Shi, Z., Church, R. M., & Meck, W. H. (2013). Bayesian optimization of time perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(11), 556–564.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stetson, C., Cui, X., Montague, P. R., & Eagleman, D. M. (2006). Motor-sensory recalibration leads to an illusory reversal of action and sensation. Neuron, 51(5), 651–659.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sugano, Y., Keetels, M., & Vroomen, J. (2010). Adaptation to motor-visual and motor-auditory temporal lags transfer across modalities. Experimental Brain Research. Experimentelle Hirnforschung. Experimentation Cerebrale, 201(3), 393–399.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-2047-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sugano, Y., Keetels, M., & Vroomen, J. (2012). The build-up and transfer of sensorimotor temporal recalibration measured via a synchronization task. Frontiers in Psychology, 3.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00246
  52. Thanopoulos, V., Psarou, E., & Vatakis, A. (2018). Robust intentional binding for causally-linked sequences of naturalistic events but not for abstract event sequences. Acta Psychologica, 190, 159–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thoenes, S., & Oberfeld, D. (2017). Meta-analysis of time perception and temporal processing in schizophrenia: Differential effects on precision and accuracy. Clinical Psychology Review, 54, 44–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vatakis, A., & Spence, C. (2007). Crossmodal binding: Εvaluating the “unity assumption” using audiovisual speech stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics, 69(5), 744–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wegner, D. M., & Wheatley, T. (1999). Apparent mental causation: Sources of the experience of will. American Psychologist, 54(7), 480–492.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.480 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Welch, R. B. (1999). Meaning, attention, and the “unity assumption” in the intersensory bias of spatial and temporal perceptions. In G. Aschersleben, T. Bachmann, & J. Müsseler (Eds.), Advances in psychology (Vol. 129, pp. 371–387). North-Holland. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166411599800363
  57. Welch, R. B., & Warren, D. H. (1980). Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 638–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Young, M. E. (1995). On the origin of personal causal theories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 83–104.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Desantis
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marc Buehner
    • 4
  1. 1.Département Traitement de l’Information et SystèmesONERASalon-de-ProvenceFrance
  2. 2.Integrative Neuroscience and Cognition Center, CNRS, Université Paris DescartesParisFrance
  3. 3.Institut de Neurosciences de la Timone, CNRS, Aix-Marseille UniversitéMarseilleFrance
  4. 4.School of Psychology, Cardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations