Test your temporal resolution!

[CyberPitz]

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/52974/Test_Your_Temporal_Resolution

That was actually really fun. I thought it was a pretty neat idea.

 

[Stigmata]

ack! I'm in the middle of a test and it starts randomly playing the intervals twice per iteration

[edit] The only ones I got wrong were the ones where it played the intervals twice, over top of each other - 28/30

[edit2] Took it again, acclimatized to the accidental layering, and got perfect. My threshold is 1ms

 

[Dan]

I got a threshold of 13 ms the first time and got 1ms the second time with a perfect 30/30 score.

Once you get used it it you just listen to the sound and its easy to tell. If the first beat sounds kind of hollow it's slow, if it sounds like its increasing in pitch then its fast. For a lot of them I could tell if it was going to be first faster or second faster without even hearing the second sound because it's either faster or slower than 100ms.

 

[63]

Wow, I just woke up and saw this thread + tried it + failed + now I want to go back to bed.

 

[tehsolace]

Its a cool concept but I think its flawed if someone tries to do a second test. I think we eventually learn the distinction between the two beats as whole sounds after about 30 times, so the game turns into which sound came first, rather than which beat was faster.

 

[Krynn72]

8.43 ms. 1st try

 

[Stigmata]

What the test should do, IMO, is start out with sounds that are about 150ms apart, and each iteration reduces the time between beats by about 3ms, so the very last portion tests your ability to differentiate temporal resolutions of about 60ms.

[edit] Although, if the difference between each part of a sample pair stays the same, it technically becomes easier to differentiate between the two as the overall length decreases. If the difference between each pair sample is on the order of 2ms, then the first test would be testing how well you can detect a 1.333% difference in length, whereas the same test on a 60ms sample tests how well you can detect a 3.333% difference in length.

Interesting...

 

[sinkoman]

Perfect on my first shot. 1.00 ms

Am I the only one that found the test to be insanely easy though?

I play drums though (and since I was what, 6?), so that might be why

 

[NeonSpyder]

Wow, I correctly answered only 11 out of 30, so even if I had been trying to do it based on pure chance, I still ****ed it up.

With a 25MS response time?... god I may as well step in front of a bus right now

 

[Naudian]

It was pretty easy...I got 26/30 but If I had not rushed it and payed more attention I would have got 30/30.
It's just the same thing 30 times over...should be more varied

 

[Bad^Hat]

Perfect on my first shot. 1.00 ms

Am I the only one that found the test to be insanely easy though?

I play drums though (and since I was what, 6?), so that might be why

Perfect first time aswell, and a drummer

Only refreshed the page once after listening to the first one, didn't understand what I was meant to be listening for straight away.

 

[Dekstar]

First time I got 24/30 with a threshold of 9.57ms
Not bad considering I just woke up

 

[The Brick]

Easy, 29/30 first time with 5ms.

 

[jondy]

30 first time. Drummers suck :E

 

[Instinct]

I can't do it at all.

 

[CyberPitz]

since the fastest is always the same speed *100ms* then really, you just listen for that one.

 

[Beerdude26]

15.31ms because I completely lost it when at the fifteenth. Hey, I went to bed at 5.30AM and got up at 7.30AM today so ye

 

[Krynn72]

since the fastest is always the same speed *100ms* then really, you just listen for that one.

Yep, I think i missed the first two before memorizing the quick one. Then I just listened for it on the first one. I didnt even bother listening to the second set, because i could tell already from the first set.

 

[Shippi]

.