Processing Speed
Duration Discrimination Task
Also called: auditory duration discrimination, interval discrimination task, temporal discrimination task, duration difference limen, tone duration discrimination
Measure how finely people tell apart the lengths of two tones, a standard and a slightly longer or shorter comparison, with headphones.
7-10 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 116
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 5
What it measures
Measures how finely people tell the lengths of two tones apart. Participants hear a standard tone and a slightly longer or shorter one, in either order, and choose the longer, at eight fixed differences. The main score is the difference limen: how far the lengths must differ for the comparison to be called longer 75 percent of the time.
Constructs
- Time perception
- Interval timing
- Duration discrimination
- Auditory temporal processing
Research uses
- Time perception research
- Aging and development research
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The duration discrimination task measures how finely people tell apart the lengths of two sounds (Creelman, 1962; Abel, 1972; review: Grondin, 2010). It needs headphones and normal hearing. The test starts with the sound setup: the participant turns the device's volume until a steady tone is comfortable, and a six-trial headphone check (Woods, Siegel, Traer and McDermott, 2017) confirms that headphones are in use. By default a failed check ends the test, and the check's result is saved either way.
More about the paradigm
On each trial the participant presses Play and hears two 1 kHz tones, the standard of 500 ms (250 or 1,000 ms as a setting) and a comparison, in either order, with a silence of 500 to 900 ms between them drawn from the session's seed. The participant chooses the tone that lasted longer, with no time limit, and is asked not to count. The eight comparisons are the standard times e to the power of -0.4, -0.2, -0.1, -0.05, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.4 (335, 409, 452, 476, 526, 553, 611 and 746 ms for the 500 ms standard): steps that double on a log scale on both sides of the standard, so every trial has a right answer. Each comes 12 times (8 to 20 as a setting), with the comparison first on half of them, in runs that hold every comparison once: 96 trials at the standard settings. Six practice trials at the largest differences give feedback; the test gives none, and no answer changes the comparisons that follow (the method of constant stimuli, as in Hartcher-O'Brien, Di Luca and Ernst, 2014). The browser makes the tones with 10 ms ramps at the level the participant set and starts every sound on the audio clock's sample grid; the output delay the device reports is saved.
The main score is the difference limen: half the distance between the comparisons named longer 25% and 75% of the time, from a cumulative Gaussian on log duration fitted to the share of answers naming the comparison as longer. Each order of the tones keeps its own point of equality and the two share one slope, so a shift between the orders does not widen the function, as it would if one function were fitted to both orders unchanged (Ulrich and Vorberg, 2009). Each order's own limen is reported beside it; the limen tends to be larger with the standard second (Lapid, Ulrich and Rammsayer, 2008). The Weber fraction is the limen over the standard. The point of equality, the comparison named longer half the time, is a bias with no better direction.
The Temporal Bisection Task shows a disk on the screen, classes one duration at a time as short or long against two learned times, and scores the bisection point, which has no better direction. Here two tones are compared on every trial, with nothing to learn first, and the main score, the difference limen, is lower when timing is finer. The test does not measure or screen hearing: scores are research measures and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Difference Limenms
- Half the distance between the comparisons named longer 25% and 75% of the time, from one function in which each order of the tones keeps its own point of equality.
- Lower means finer timing
- Weber Fractionscore
- Difference limen divided by the standard.
- Lower means finer timing
- Difference Limen, Standard Firstms
- The limen fitted on trials with the standard first.
- Informational
- Difference Limen, Standard Secondms
- The limen fitted on trials with the standard second.
- Often larger than with the standard first
- Point of Equalityms
- Comparison named longer half the time, midway between the two orders of the tones.
- Its distance from the standard is a bias with no better direction
- Point of Equality, Standard Firstms
- Comparison named longer half the time with the standard first.
- Informational
- Point of Equality, Standard Secondms
- Comparison named longer half the time with the standard second.
- Informational
- Accuracy%
- Share of usable answers that named the longer tone.
- Higher is better; guessing gives 0.5
- Comparison Called Longer%
- Share of answers naming the comparison longer at each comparison, keyed by its ms.
- The psychometric function
- Lapse Rate%
- Fitted share of answers that did not follow the durations.
- Lower is better
- First Tone Answers%
- Share of usable answers that named the first tone.
- 0.5 means no lean toward either tone
- Median Answer Timems
- Median time from when the answers opened, after both tones, to the answer.
- Informational; the answer has no time limit
- Anticipationscount
- Answers within 100 ms of the answers opening, which leave the score.
- Half or more of the answers makes the session invalid
- Completed Trialstrials
- Trials answered in the scored run.
- Fewer than planned is flagged for review
- Planned Trialstrials
- Trials the run set out to play.
- Informational
- Headphone Check Passed0/1
- 1 when the headphone check passed (at least 5 of 6 right), 0 when it did not.
- 0 stops the test unless the study set it to continue
- Headphone Check Correctcount
- Headphone check trials answered right, of 6.
- 5 or 6 passes
- Reported Output Delayms
- Output delay the device reported to the browser; empty when the browser does not report it.
- Informational
Use and evidence
116 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 6% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 173 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 36 |
| 2024 | 16 |
| 2023 | 20 |
| 2022 | 22 |
| 2021 | 22 |
| 2020 | 23 |
| 2019 | 19 |
| 2018 | 29 |
| 2017 | 18 |
| 2016 | 20 |
| 2015 | 28 |
| 2014 | 35 |
| 2013 | 33 |
| 2012 | 20 |
| 2011 | 30 |
| 2010 | 23 |
| 2009 | 34 |
| 2008 | 24 |
| 2007 | 14 |
| 2006 | 15 |
| 2005 | 13 |
| 2004 | 24 |
| 2003 | 10 |
| 2002 | 15 |
| 2001 | 10 |
| 2000 | 11 |
Use grade C
100 to 299 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 4
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 74
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 5
Note on the counts: includes visual and touch versions.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 2 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Sound setup
- The participant turns the device's volume until a steady 1 kHz tone is comfortable, then takes a 6-trial headphone check (Woods and colleagues, 2017). By default a failed check ends the test; its result is saved either way.
- Trial
- Press Play to hear two 1 kHz tones, the standard and a comparison in either order, with a silence of 500 to 900 ms between them. Choose First or Second for the tone that lasted longer, with no time limit.
- Durations
- A standard of 500 ms (standard), 250 ms or 1,000 ms, and eight comparisons at the standard times e to the power of -0.4, -0.2, -0.1, -0.05, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.4: 335, 409, 452, 476, 526, 553, 611 and 746 ms for the 500 ms standard. Tones have 10 ms ramps.
- Trials
- Each comparison 12 times (standard, 8 to 20), with the comparison first on half of them, in runs that hold every comparison once, in an order drawn from the session's seed: 96 trials, with no feedback.
- Practice
- 6 trials at the longest and the shortest comparison, with feedback for 1,000 ms.
- Fixed levels
- Every duration is set before the session, and no answer changes the next one: there is no staircase. The browser makes the tones at the level the participant set and starts them on the audio clock's sample grid; the output delay the device reports is saved.
- Score
- The difference limen: half the distance between the 25% and 75% points of a cumulative Gaussian on log duration, fitted by maximum likelihood to the share of answers naming the comparison longer, with each order of the tones keeping its own point of equality. The Weber fraction is the limen over the standard, and each order's own limen is reported too. Answers under 100 ms leave the score.
Unlike the Temporal Bisection Task, which classes one duration at a time against two learned times, this task compares two tones on every trial. Difference limens depend on the standard, the order of the tones and the procedure, so compare them within studies run the same way. The test needs normal hearing and headphones, and it does not measure or screen hearing. The scores support research and do not diagnose.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: duration_discrimination_test from the scored run, a button for the first or the second tone as the longer after both have played, with no time limit (chance 50%; no comparison equals the standard, and the comparison comes first on half the trials at every comparison), graded from the saved button and the longer tone. Below chance invalidates and not above chance is flagged; one button on 90% of answers invalidates when accuracy is not above chance; answers under 100 ms invalidate when they are at least half. A headphone check that stopped the test invalidates; a failed check with the test run anyway, no difference limen from the fits, or a run short of its planned trials is flagged for review.
Why these rules
Accuracy significantly below chance (one-sided exact test, p < .05) cannot come from guessing; it means the response mapping was reversed or the task was not followed (Slick, Sherman and Iverson 1999 treat below-chance forced-choice performance as definite response bias). Chance-level accuracy can be a real result in impaired participants, so it is only flagged. One option on at least 90% of answered trials, when the correct options are balanced and accuracy is not above chance, means the answers did not depend on the items (the task counterpart of long-string responding in surveys; Curran 2016). The answers open once both sounds have played and have no time limit, so an answer under 100 ms was pressed before they opened, and only a session made mostly of such answers is invalid. A failed headphone check that stopped the test leaves no trials to score (Woods, Siegel, Traer and McDermott, 2017). A limen whose 25% and 75% points fall outside the comparisons played cannot be estimated from them.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| When the headphone check fails | Stop the test | Stop the test, Continue the test |
| Standard tone | 500 ms (standard) | 500 ms (standard), 250 ms, 1,000 ms |
| Trials per comparison | 12 | 8 to 20 |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Needs headphones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Duration Discrimination Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Creelman, 1962; Abel, 1972), with the standard settings (when the headphone check fails: Stop the test; standard tone: 500 ms; trials per comparison: 12). The main score was difference limen (half the distance between the comparisons named longer 25% and 75% of the time, from one function in which each order of the tones keeps its own point of equality).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Creelman, C. D. (1962). Human discrimination of auditory duration. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 34(5), 582-593. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1918172Discrimination of the duration of tones.
- Abel, S. M. (1972). Duration discrimination of noise and tone bursts. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51(4B), 1219-1223. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1912963Duration discrimination of filled sounds.
- Grondin, S. (2010). Timing and time perception: A review of recent behavioral and neuroscience findings and theoretical directions. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(3), 561-582. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.3.561Duration discrimination among the methods of time perception research.
- Hartcher-O'Brien, J., Di Luca, M., & Ernst, M. O. (2014). The duration of uncertain times: Audiovisual information about intervals is integrated in a statistically optimal fashion. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e89339. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089339Comparisons at fixed steps on both sides of a standard, in either order with a random gap, and a fitted cumulative Gaussian.
- Lapid, E., Ulrich, R., & Rammsayer, T. (2008). On estimating the difference limen in duration discrimination tasks: A comparison of the 2AFC and the reminder task. Perception & Psychophysics, 70(2), 291-305. https://doi.org/10.3758/PP.70.2.291Fixed and adaptive procedures give similar limens, and the limen is larger with the standard second.
- Ulrich, R., & Vorberg, D. (2009). Estimating the difference limen in 2AFC tasks: Pitfalls and improved estimators. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(6), 1219-1227. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.6.1219Order effects bias a limen from one function fitted to both orders unchanged.
- García-Pérez, M. A., & Alcalá-Quintana, R. (2011). Improving the estimation of psychometric functions in 2AFC discrimination tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 96. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00096Separate functions for the two orders, with the point of equality left free.
- García-Pérez, M. A., & Alcalá-Quintana, R. (2026). Psychometric functions for temporal discrimination: Duration or log duration? Behavior Research Methods, 58(7), 195. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-026-03075-0Functions of log duration describe duration discrimination better than functions of duration.
- Woods, K. J. P., Siegel, M. H., Traer, J., & McDermott, J. H. (2017). Headphone screening to facilitate web-based auditory experiments. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(7), 2064-2072. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1361-2The headphone check before the test.
Source papers
- Hartcher-O'Brien, Di Luca and Ernst (2014): comparisons at fixed steps around a standard in two intervals, with a cumulative Gaussian. Lapid, Ulrich and Rammsayer (2008) and Ulrich and Vorberg (2009): the difference limen in two-interval tasks and the order of the tones.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Duration Discrimination Task take?
About 7 to 10 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Needs headphones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Difference Limen, Weber Fraction, Difference Limen, Standard First, Difference Limen, Standard Second, Point of Equality, Point of Equality, Standard First, Point of Equality, Standard Second, Accuracy, Comparison Called Longer, Lapse Rate, First Tone Answers, Median Answer Time, Anticipations, Completed Trials, Planned Trials, Headphone Check Passed, Headphone Check Correct and Reported Output Delay. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Duration Discrimination Task used in research?
116 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 6% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 173 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade C). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 2 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Duration Discrimination Task have?
In the published research, 4 papers report its test-retest reliability and 5 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Which settings can a researcher change?
When the headphone check fails (Stop the test, Continue the test), standard tone (500 ms (standard), 250 ms, 1,000 ms) and trials per comparison (8 to 20). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.