Metacognitive Reactivity and Temporal Perception: The Influence of Confidence Ratings on the Temporal Binding Window

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
Full text 1,874 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
ABSTRACT The influence of confidence in assessing the perceived timing of sensory events on perceptual decision-making remains poorly understood. Metacognition—the ability to reflect on one’s thought processes — is often assessed through confidence ratings in perceptual tasks. However, accessing metacognitive information can influence task performance, a phenomenon known as the reactivity effect. This study examines metacognitive reactivity by examining the impact of confidence ratings on the temporal binding window (TBW) in two multisensory time perception tasks that use identical stimuli but require different judgments: Temporal Order Judgment (TOJ) and Simultaneity Judgment (SJ). Thirty-five participants (aged 18–39) completed TOJ and SJ tasks with and without confidence ratings via Prolific, an online participant recruitment platform. Psychometric functions were fitted to response and confidence data to determine TBW and the point of subjective simultaneity (PSS). Both tasks exhibited reactivity effects, with the effect being stronger in the SJ task. TBW significantly differed between TOJ and SJ tasks, regardless of confidence ratings. Additionally, TBWs from TOJ and SJ tasks were strongly correlated, as were the width parameters of confidence curves, suggesting shared underlying mechanisms in both perceptual and metacognitive processes. These findings highlight the utility of confidence ratings in evaluating TOJ and SJ performance, revealing both task differences and commonalities. We also discuss the potential for training interventions to enhance temporal perception, particularly in older adults. Finally, we reflect on the advantages and challenges of online data collection via Prolific, including its diverse participant pool and timing precision limitations. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00