{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017823639774859287, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.313609467455621, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Can a decay process explain the timing of conditioned responses?

To explain time-scale invariant distributions of response latencies, it appears to be necessary to postulate scalar noise in the remembered intervals, against which the subjective measure of the currently elapsing interval is compared. At least in some cases, the observed variability cannot be due to variability in the subjective intervals written to memory; it must come from noise (variability) in the reading of a memory. The Staddon and Higa proposal offers no explanation for the observed variability, and it is unclear what noise assumption would yield the observed variability, given their assumption that intervals are timed by a nonlinear decay process. The decay process cannot plausibly be represented by the logarithmic function, because it begins and ends at infinity. The assumption of any form of nonlinear timing is inconsistent with the most important result of the time-left experiment, which is that the changeover time increases linearly with the comparison-standard difference.