Abstract: Previous research has demonstrated that the concept of time is recognized through space, which is known as spatial metaphor for time, but it still remains to be seen whether such metaphor will affect time perception. Also, previous research has indicated that spatial distance has effect on the processing of time. Do people think about time using language containing spatial metaphor? Further, do people also perceive time using space information even when they are not using language? Current research studied the influence of linguistic and nonlinguistic stimuli containing four kinds of space characteristics (long, short, wide, narrow) on duration perception. Linguistic stimuli consisted of four Chinese words “long”, “short”, “wide” and “narrow”, while nonlinguistic stimuli consisted of a long line, a short line, a wide rectangle and a narrow rectangle. Two experiments, both of which used multifactor mixed design, were conducted to comprehensively investigate the impact of space characteristics on duration perception in a wide range of time. Experiment 1 used temporal bisection task, in which participants were trained to distinguish between two different exposure durations. Participants were then shown stimuli presented at a number of durations (400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600ms) that fall between the two learned durations (400ms and 1600ms), and were asked to indicate whether the test stimulus was closer in duration to the shorter or longer learned item. Experiment 2 used time reproduction method, in which participants were shown stimuli presented at two durations (2000ms and 4000ms). Participants were then asked to reproduce the duration of the test stimulus by pressing the space bar twice, between which the time interval was counted as its reproduction time. Results showed that at 400～1600ms as well as 4000ms, “long” was perceived to have been shown longer and “short” was perceived to have been shown shorter, while at 2000ms, “long” was perceived to have been shown shorter and “short” was perceived to have been shown longer. Both in experiment 1 and 2, “wide”, “narrow” and all the nonlinguistic stimuli had no significant effect on duration perception. Also, there was a tendency that nonlinguistic stimuli were perceived to have been shown shorter than the linguistic stimuli. In addition, the duration of 2000ms was overestimated while the duration of 4000ms was neither overestimated nor underestimated. These results reveal that: (1) spatial words “long” and “short” influence perceived duration in two different ways that they whether guide or interfere with it; (2) spatial words “wide” and “narrow” as well as nonlinguistic information of space characteristics, do not affect duration perception; (3) linguistic and nonlinguistic information of space characteristics has different effects on duration perception; (4) shorter duration (2000ms) tends to be overestimated compared to longer duration (4000ms). In conclusion, the present research has found a new and interesting phenomenon in which the duration of the spatial word “long” tends to be underestimated and that of “short” tends to be overestimated. Such phenomenon, which only exists when the duration is 2000ms, deserves further study.

Key words: space characteristics; spatial metaphor for time; duration perception