ArticleCurrent opinion in behavioral sciences2016
Multiple channels of visual time perception.
Article in Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Symmetrical and asymmetrical distortions in time and numerosity perception induced by chunked stimuli.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- The neural link between stimulus duration and spatial location in the human visual hierarchy.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Memorability shapes perceived time (and vice versa).Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Measuring the perception and metacognition of time.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- A purely visual adaptation to motion can differentiate between perceptual timing and interval timing.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- A metacognitive approach to the study of motion-induced duration biases reveals inter-individual differences in forming confidence judgments.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Duration judgments are mediated by the similarity with the temporal context.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Temporal perturbations cause movement-context independent but modality specific sensorimotor adaptation.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Differences in perceived durations between plausible biological and non-biological stimuli.Experimental brain research · 2021Article
- Impact of delayed response on wearable cognitive assistance.PloS one · 2021Article
- Adaptation reveals multi-stage coding of visual duration.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Rhythmic motor behaviour influences perception of visual time.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2018Article
- Motion-induced compression of perceived numerosity.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Rate after-effects fail to transfer cross-modally: Evidence for distributed sensory timing mechanisms.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Dilation and Constriction of Subjective Time Based on Observed Walking Speed.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Article
- Relative Time Compression for Slow-Motion Stimuli through Rapid Recalibration.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The proposal that the processing of visual time might rely on a network of distributed mechanisms that are vision-specific and timescale-specific stands in contrast to the classical view of time perception as the product of a single supramodal clock. Evidence showing that some of these mechanisms have a sensory component that can be locally adapted is at odds with another traditional assumption, namely that time is completely divorced from space. Recent evidence suggests that multiple timing mechanisms exist across and within sensory modalities and that they operate in various neural regions. The current review summarizes this evidence and frames it into the broader scope of models for time perception in the visual domain.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.