Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24478694›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neurorobotics2014

How long did it last? You would better ask a human.

Francesco Lacquaniti, Mauro Carrozzo, Andrea d'Avella, Barbara La Scaleia, Alessandro Moscatelli, Myrka Zago

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neurorobotics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Speed Biases With Real-Life Video Clips.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Francesco LacquanitiDepartment of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata Rome, Italy ; Centre of Space BioMedicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata Rome, Italy ; Laboratory of Neuromotor Physiology, Santa Lucia Foundation Rome, Italy.
Mauro CarrozzoLaboratory of Neuromotor Physiology, Santa Lucia Foundation Rome, Italy ; Cell Biology and Neurobiology Institute, National Research Council Rome, Italy.
Andrea d'AvellaLaboratory of Neuromotor Physiology, Santa Lucia Foundation Rome, Italy.
Barbara La ScaleiaLaboratory of Neuromotor Physiology, Santa Lucia Foundation Rome, Italy.
Alessandro MoscatelliDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Bielefeld Bielefeld, Germany.
Myrka ZagoLaboratory of Neuromotor Physiology, Santa Lucia Foundation Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the future, human-like robots will live among people to provide company and help carrying out tasks in cooperation with humans. These interactions require that robots understand not only human actions, but also the way in which we perceive the world. Human perception heavily relies on the time dimension, especially when it comes to processing visual motion. Critically, human time perception for dynamic events is often inaccurate. Robots interacting with humans may want to see the world and tell time the way humans do: if so, they must incorporate human-like fallacy. Observers asked to judge the duration of brief scenes are prone to errors: perceived duration often does not match the physical duration of the event. Several kinds of temporal distortions have been described in the specialized literature. Here we review the topic with a special emphasis on our work dealing with time perception of animate actors versus inanimate actors. This work shows the existence of specialized time bases for different categories of targets. The time base used by the human brain to process visual motion appears to be calibrated against the specific predictions regarding the motion of human figures in case of animate motion, while it can be calibrated against the predictions of motion of passive objects in case of inanimate motion. Human perception of time appears to be strictly linked with the mechanisms used to control movements. Thus, neural time can be entrained by external cues in a similar manner for both perceptual judgments of elapsed time and in motor control tasks. One possible strategy could be to implement in humanoids a unique architecture for dealing with time, which would apply the same specialized mechanisms to both perception and action, similarly to humans. This shared implementation might render the humanoids more acceptable to humans, thus facilitating reciprocal interactions.

Indexed as

animatebiological motionhumanoidinanimatetime perceptionvisual motion

Identifiers

PMID24478694
PMCPMC3902214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.