Harvard Psychological Studies, Volume 1: Containing Sixteen Experimental Investigations from the Harvard Psychological Laboratory.
Science
Harvard Psychological Studies, Volume 1: Containing Sixteen Experimental Investigations from the Harvard Psychological Laboratory.
Psychology, Experimental
x_{1} and x_{2} must, however, not be great, since the condition
that the curve with which we are dealing shall approximate the form
denoted by the equation is more nearly fulfilled by those portions of
the curve lying nearest to the _Y_ axis.
Now since for any ordinates, y_{1} and y_{2} which we may select
from the table, we know the value of x_{1} ± x_{2}, we can compute
the value of x_{1}, which conversely gives us the amount to be added
to or subtracted from a given term in the series of _CT_'s to produce
the value of the average _ET_. This latter value, we find, by
computing by the formula given above, using the four terms whose
values lie nearest to the _Y_ axis, is 5.25 secs.
In Table II are given similar computations for each of the nine
subjects employed, and from this it will be seen that in every case
the standard is overestimated.
TABLE II. _ST_= 5.0 SECS.
Subject. Average ET. No. of Series.
_A_. 5.75 50
_B_. 5.13 40
_Hs_. 5.26 100
_P_. 5.77 38
_Mn_. 6.19 50
_Mr_. 5.25 60
_R_. 5.63 24
_Sh_. 5.34 100
_Sn_. 5.57 50
This overestimation of the 5.0 sec. standard agrees with the results
of some of the experimenters on auditory time and apparently conflicts
with the results of others. Mach[4] found no constant error. Höring[5]
found that intervals over 0.5 sec. were overestimated. Vierordt,[6]
Kollert,[7] Estel[8] and Glass,[9] found small intervals overestimated
and long ones underestimated, the indifference point being placed at
about 3.0 by Vierordt, 0.7 by Kollert and Estel and 0.8 by Glass.
Mehner[10] found underestimation from 0.7 to 5.0 and overestimation
above 5.0. Schumann[11] found in one set of experiments overestimation
from 0.64 to 2.75 and from 3.5 to 5.0, and underestimation from 2.75
to 3.5. Stevens[12] found underestimation of small intervals and
overestimation of longer ones, placing the indifference point between
0.53 and 0.87.
[4] Mach, E.: 'Untersuchungen über den Zeitsinn des Ohres,'
_Sitzungsber. d. Wiener Akad._, Math.-Nat. Kl., Bd. 51, Abth.
2.
[5] Höring: 'Versuche über das Unterscheidungsvermögen des
Hörsinnes für Zeitgrössen,' Tübingen, 1864.
[6] Vierordt: _op. cit._
[7] Kollert, J.: 'Untersuchungen über den Zeitsinn,' _Phil.
Studien_, I., S. 79.
[8] Estel, V.: 'Neue Versuche über den Zeitsinn,' _Phil.
Studien_, II., S. 39.
[9] Glass R.: 'Kritisches und Experimentelles über den
Zeitsinn,' _Phil. Studien_, IV., S. 423.
[10] Mehner, Max: 'Zum Lehre vom Zeitsinn,' _Phil. Studien_,
II., S. 546.
[11] Schumann, F.: 'Ueber die Schätzung kleiner Zeitgrössen,'
_Zeitsch. f. Psych._, IV., S. 48.
[12] Stevens, L.T.: 'On the Time Sense,' _Mind_, XI., p. 393.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account