I'm a lecturer and researcher based jointly in the Department of Informatics and School of Psychology at the University of Sussex, UK. My research focuses on human perception, particularly perception and experience of time.
In my early academic life I also spent time in the Synaptic Plasticity Lab at the Queensland Brain Institute.
Haven't updated this in a while, but the below three pre-prints were all published last year: Trial-by-trial predictions of subjective time from human brain activity in PLOS Computational Biology; A predictive processing model of episodic memory and time perception in Neural Computation; and Serious problems with interpreting rubber hand illusion experiments in Collabra: Psychology. The review experiences for these papers at the final locations were fair - the reviewers read the papers and made suggestions to improve them. Prior to those submissions, for all three of these papers, repeated submissions were a prolonged joke of people with competing interests rejecting for reasons unrelated to the content (often it seemed they didn't even read the papers). "Peer review" as it exists has become a complete joke - it's another corrupt enterprise run for the advantage of those who already have the sufficient privilege to abuse it. If people can "anonymously" reject things which aren't by their close friends or that they clearly haven't read, without consequence, then all of science "published" will only be about who you know, not about any form of reality (of course, we already see this with e.g. the reviewer/editor rings in the rubber hand "illusion" and the heartbeat interoception corners of the field where "published" work is completely removed from reality). Moving forward, I will only be submitting my own papers and reviewing at locations where reviews are conducted transparently in the hope that removing the anonymity of reviewers encourages them to consider whether they want to continue this kind of misconduct in public view. I will be encouraging all of my coauthors and colleagues to do the same.
New pre-print, not about time perception for a change. Serious problems with interpreting rubber hand illusion experiments. Title says it all, really. Rubber hand illusion is so strongly confounded by suggestion effects as to not really be worth much at all. Can't use RHI experiments (or similar) as basis of claims about body ownership.
Paper Perceptual Content, Not Physiological Signals, Determines Perceived Duration When Viewing Dynamic, Natural Scenes out in Collabra: Psychology.
Paper Intentional binding as Bayesian cue combination: testing predictions with trait individual differences accepted at Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
Paper 'Intentional binding' without intentional action out in Psychological Science. 'Intentional binding' size temporal binding can be found without any action. Therefore, it can never be taken as given that 'intentional binding' indicates the influence of intentions.
Paper from our group on serial dependence in visual variance published at Journal of Vision