Some factors in estimating short time intervals.

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Results of this study show that although most subjects count when they are actively engaged in making time estimates, they can make almost as accurate judgments without counting. In the latter instances groupings of mental content probably constitute the cues for time estimations. That is, through previous experience they have learned about how much mental content passes through the mind in any given length of time. The estimates of subjects who give only casual attention are, when they count, almost as accurate as those of subjects who attend closely to the interval. The counting gives the cues for estimation. When subjects giving only casual attention do not count, they have no adequate cues and make errors which in one part of the experiment averaged one-half larger than when they counted. The percent of error in estimations tended to be approximately the same for 8 different time intervals estimated, ranging from 4-27 seconds. There is little difference between men and women in estimating time. Practice with counting shows marked improvement in time estimations. Practice without counting does not result in such improvement. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: