Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:46:28.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Limitations of Hoerl and McCormack's dual systems model of temporal consciousness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2019

Eve A. Isham ,
Elijah M. Ziskin  and
Mary A. Peterson
Eve A. Isham
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ85721. [email protected]@[email protected]://cat.lab.arizona.edu/
Elijah M. Ziskin
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ85721. [email protected]@[email protected]://cat.lab.arizona.edu/
Mary A. Peterson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ85721. [email protected]@[email protected]://cat.lab.arizona.edu/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hoerl & McCormack's dual systems framework provides a new avenue toward the scientific investigation of temporal cognition. However, some shortcomings of the model should be considered. These issues include their reliance on a somewhat vague consideration of “systems” rather than specific computational processes. Moreover, the model does not consider the subjective nature of temporal experience or the role of consciousness in temporal cognition.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e256
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alais, D. & Blake, R., eds. (2005) Binocular rivalry. MIT Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Berkovich-Ohana, A. & Glicksohn, J. (2014) The consciousness state space (CSS) – a unifying model for consciousness and self. Frontiers in Psychology 5. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. S. T. & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8(3):223–41. doi:10.1177/1745691612460685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glicksohn, J., Berkovich-Ohana, A., Mauro, F. & Ben-Soussan, T. D. (2017) Time perception and the experience of time when immersed in an altered sensory environment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 11. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isham, E. A., Banks, W. P., Ekstrom, A. D. & Stern, J. A. (2011) Deceived and distorted: Game outcome retrospectively determines the reported time of action. Journal of Experimental Psychology 37:1458–69.Google Scholar
Isham, E. A., Le, C. H. & Ekstrom, A. D. (2018) Rightward and leftward biases in temporal reproduction of objects represented in central and peripheral spaces. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 153:71–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, W. (1890/1950) The principles of psychology, vol. 1. Dover.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R. S. S., Weger, U. W. & Sharma, D. (2013) The effect of mindfulness meditation on time perception. Consciousness and Cognition 22:846–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polger, T. W. & Shapiro, L. A. (2016) The multiple realization book. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Wassenhove, V., Buonomano, D. V., Shimojo, S. & Shams, L. (2008) Distortions of subjective time perception within and across senses. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittmann, M. & Paulus, M. P. (2008) Decision making, impulsivity and time perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12:7–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed