Abstract
The event-emergent timing distinction has been proposed by Ivry, Spencer and Zelaznik to account for behavioural as well as neuropsychological dissociations between timing in tapping and circle drawing. One of the key and stable findings from over ten years of research has been that timing in circle drawing is more precise (less variable) than timing in tapping. Recently, Studenka and Zelaznik (2011, Acta Psychologica) have shown that if a source of salient
feedback is added to a circle drawing task, that synchronization in circle drawing behaves like tapping. In the present study we ask whether adding tactile feedback to circle drawing in a continuation timing task would produce
tapping like timing behavior; in other words, tactile feedback in circle drawing would increase timing variability! Twenty eight subjects were assigned to one of four groups, Tapping with contact, Tapping without contact, Circle Drawing with contact, Circle Drawing without Contact. Each of these tasks was performed at each of four goal durations, 400, 500, 600 and 800 ms. We predicted that adding a salient feedback event would increase timing variance because the event would drive the performer from emergent timing to event timing. Results were clear. Adding tactile feedback improved timing precision, contrary to our predictions. We discuss these results in terms of a more nuanced approach to timing control.
