I would say
response ~ brightness+duration+(duration|subject)
would probably be a little better. (The simpler (1|duration:subject)
model is not necessarily wrong, but might be oversimplified. If I were a peer reviewer of this work I would certainly ask for a justification of the simpler model ...) The (duration|subject)
model is a "random-slopes" model, more or less (although if you have coded duration
as a categorical (factor or ordered factor) variable the thing that varies randomly among subjects is not a slope per se, but a between-duration difference). The specification you have ((1|subject:duration)
) assumes all subject-duration effects are drawn from a single (iid) Normal distribution; (duration|subject)
assumes that the duration effects for a single individual are drawn from a $3 \times 3$ multivariate Normal distribution.
More precisely: comparing the random effect specification (1|subject:duration)
gives the model for the conditional modes/BLUPs of subject $s$ for duration $d$ (or duration effect $d$, depending on how the model is parameterized)
$$
b_{sd} \sim \textrm{Normal}(0,\sigma_{sd}^2)
$$
whereas (duration|subject)
gives
$$
\begin{split}
b_{s\cdot} & \sim \textrm{MVN}( \mathbf 0,\Sigma) \\
\Sigma & = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\sigma^2_1 & \sigma_{12} & \sigma_{13} \\
\sigma_{12} & \sigma^2_{2} & \sigma_{23} \\
\sigma_{13} & \sigma_{23} & \sigma^2_3 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\end{split}
$$
i.e., the different duration levels each have different among-subjects variances, and the among-subject variation in different duration levels is correlated ($\Sigma$ is a general symmetric positive (semi)definite matrix). To get back to the previous model you would need to restrict $\sigma_1^2=\sigma_2^2=\sigma_3^2=\sigma_{sd}^2$ and all of the off-diagonal elements would be zero.