Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28740142›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Intended outcome expands in time.

Mukesh Makwana, Narayanan Srinivasan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Mukesh MakwanaCentre of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, 211002, India.
Narayanan SrinivasanCentre of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, 211002, India. nsrini@cbcs.ac.in.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intentional agents desire specific outcomes and perform actions to obtain those outcomes. However, whether getting such desired (intended) outcomes change our subjective experience of the duration of that outcome is unknown. Using a temporal bisection task, we investigated the changes in temporal perception of the outcome as a function of whether it was intended or not. Before each trial, participants intended to see one of two possible outcomes but received the intended outcome only in half of the trials. Results showed that intended outcomes were perceived as longer than unintended outcomes. Interestingly, this temporal expansion was present only when the intended outcome appeared after short action-outcome delays (250 ms-Exp 1 and 500 ms-Exp 2), but not when it appeared after long action-outcome delay (1000 ms-Exp 3). The effect was absent when participants did not intend and performed instruction-based action (Exp 4). Finally, Exp 5 (verbal estimation task) revealed that intention induced temporal expansion occurs via altering the gating or switch mechanism and not the pacemaker speed. Results are explained based on intention-induced pre-activation resulting in extended temporal experience. Our study not only suggests inclusion of intention as a potential factor influencing time perception but also indicates a close link between intentional binding and the intention induced temporal expansion of its outcome.

Identifiers

PMID28740142
PMCPMC5524699

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.