A spatial-attentional mechanism underlies action-related distortions of time judgement

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
This study addressed an alternative hypothesis to temporal binding phenomena. In temporal binding, two events that are separated in time are "pulled" towards one another, such that they appear more coincidental. Previous research has shown evidence of temporal binding events in the context of actions and multisensory events. In this context, the author revisits the well-known Libet clock paradigm, in which subjects view a moving clock face, press a button at a time of their choosing to stop the clock, a tone is played (after some delay), and then subjects move the clock dial to the point where the one occurred (or when the action occurred). Classically, the reported clock time is a combination of the action and sound times. The author here suggests that attention can explain this by a mechanism in which the clock dial leads to a roving window of spatiotemporal attention (that is, it extends in both space and time around the dial). To test this, the author conducted a number of experiments where subjects performed the Libet clock experiment, but with a variety of different stimulus combinations. Crucially, a visual detection task was introduced by flashing a disc at different positions along the clock face. The results showed that detection performance was also "pulled" towards the action event or sensory event, depending on the condition. A model of roving spatiotemporal attention replicated these effects, providing further evidence of the attentional window.

Strengths:
The study provides a novel explanation for temporal binding phenomena, with clear and cleverly designed experiments. The results provide a nice fit to the proposed model, and the model itself is able to recapitulate the observed effects.

Weaknesses:
Despite the above, the paper could be clearer on why these effects are occurring. In particular, the control experiment introduced in Experiment 3 is not well justified. Why should a tactile stimulus not lead to a similar effect? There are possibilities here, but the author could do well to lay them out. Further, from a perspective related to the attentional explanation, other alternatives are not explored. The author cites and considers work suggesting that temporal binding relies on a Bayesian cue combination mechanism, in which the estimate is pulled towards the stimulus with the lowest variance, but this is not discussed. None of this necessarily detracts from the findings, but otherwise makes the case for attention less clear.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
Temporal binding, generally considered a timing illusion, results from actions triggering outcomes after a brief delay, distorting perceived timing. The present study investigates the relationship between attention and the perception of timing by employing a series of tasks involving auditory and visual stimuli. The results highlight the role of attention in event timing and the functional relevance of attention in outcome binding.

Strengths:
- Experimental Design: The manuscript details a well-structured sequence of experiments investigating the attention effect in outcome binding. Thoughtful variations in manipulation conditions and stimuli contribute to a thorough and meaningful investigation of the phenomenon.
- Statistical Analysis: The manuscript employs a diverse set of statistical tests, demonstrating careful selection and execution. This statistical approach enhances the reliability of the reported findings.
- Narrative Clarity: Both in-text descriptions and figures provide clear insights into the experiments and their results, facilitating readers in following the logic of the study.

Weaknesses:
- Conceptual Clarity: The manuscript aims to integrate key concepts in human cognitive functions, including attention, timing perception, and sensorimotor processes. However, before introducing experiments, there's a need for clearer definitions and explanations of these concepts and their known and unknown interrelationships. Given the complexity of attention, a more detailed discussion, including specific types and properties, would enhance reader comprehension.

- Computational Modeling: The manuscript lacks clarity in explaining the model architecture and setup, and it's unclear if control comparisons were conducted. These details are critical for readers to properly interpret attention-related findings in the modeling section. Providing a clearer overview of these aspects will improve the overall understanding of the computational models used.