Intentional control of event counting

Richard A. Carlson, Daniel N. Cassenti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Event counting depends on simple, well-learned knowledge but is effortful and error-prone. In 6 experiments, the authors examined event-counting performance, testing a model that suggests that counting is controlled by minimal goal representations coordinated with perceptual events by temporal synchrony. In Experiment 1, they examined self-paced counting with or without delays that disrupted participants' preferred pacing. In subsequent experiments, participants counted computer-paced events occurring at rhythmic or varied intervals, reporting or verifying totals. Several results support the model: Participants counted rhythmic events more accurately, made undetected undercount errors when counting rhythmic events, and made false alarms to undercount or overcount probes presented at different times. These results suggest that intentions that guide fluent counting specify parameters deictically rather than semantically and that error monitoring is implicit.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1235-1251
Number of pages17
JournalJournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition
Volume30
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2004

Fingerprint

event
experiment
monitoring
performance
Experiment

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

@article{838d819cf4d641c9a9c6f7cc660dbbe8,
title = "Intentional control of event counting",
abstract = "Event counting depends on simple, well-learned knowledge but is effortful and error-prone. In 6 experiments, the authors examined event-counting performance, testing a model that suggests that counting is controlled by minimal goal representations coordinated with perceptual events by temporal synchrony. In Experiment 1, they examined self-paced counting with or without delays that disrupted participants' preferred pacing. In subsequent experiments, participants counted computer-paced events occurring at rhythmic or varied intervals, reporting or verifying totals. Several results support the model: Participants counted rhythmic events more accurately, made undetected undercount errors when counting rhythmic events, and made false alarms to undercount or overcount probes presented at different times. These results suggest that intentions that guide fluent counting specify parameters deictically rather than semantically and that error monitoring is implicit.",
author = "Carlson, {Richard A.} and Cassenti, {Daniel N.}",
year = "2004",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1235",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "1235--1251",
journal = "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition",
issn = "0278-7393",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "6",

}

Intentional control of event counting. / Carlson, Richard A.; Cassenti, Daniel N.

In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, Vol. 30, No. 6, 01.11.2004, p. 1235-1251.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intentional control of event counting

AU - Carlson, Richard A.

AU - Cassenti, Daniel N.

PY - 2004/11/1

Y1 - 2004/11/1

N2 - Event counting depends on simple, well-learned knowledge but is effortful and error-prone. In 6 experiments, the authors examined event-counting performance, testing a model that suggests that counting is controlled by minimal goal representations coordinated with perceptual events by temporal synchrony. In Experiment 1, they examined self-paced counting with or without delays that disrupted participants' preferred pacing. In subsequent experiments, participants counted computer-paced events occurring at rhythmic or varied intervals, reporting or verifying totals. Several results support the model: Participants counted rhythmic events more accurately, made undetected undercount errors when counting rhythmic events, and made false alarms to undercount or overcount probes presented at different times. These results suggest that intentions that guide fluent counting specify parameters deictically rather than semantically and that error monitoring is implicit.

AB - Event counting depends on simple, well-learned knowledge but is effortful and error-prone. In 6 experiments, the authors examined event-counting performance, testing a model that suggests that counting is controlled by minimal goal representations coordinated with perceptual events by temporal synchrony. In Experiment 1, they examined self-paced counting with or without delays that disrupted participants' preferred pacing. In subsequent experiments, participants counted computer-paced events occurring at rhythmic or varied intervals, reporting or verifying totals. Several results support the model: Participants counted rhythmic events more accurately, made undetected undercount errors when counting rhythmic events, and made false alarms to undercount or overcount probes presented at different times. These results suggest that intentions that guide fluent counting specify parameters deictically rather than semantically and that error monitoring is implicit.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=7544227873&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=7544227873&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1235

DO - 10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1235

M3 - Article

C2 - 15521801

AN - SCOPUS:7544227873

VL - 30

SP - 1235

EP - 1251

JO - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

JF - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

SN - 0278-7393

IS - 6

ER -