ArticleScientific reports2018
Modality-specific temporal constraints for state-dependent interval timing.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporal sensitivity and perceived timing in unimodal and crossmodal isochronous sequences.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
- Neuronal activity in the monkey prefrontal cortex during a duration discrimination task with visual and auditory cues.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to discriminate temporal intervals in the milliseconds-to-seconds range has been accounted for by proposing that duration is encoded in the dynamic change of a neuronal network state. A critical limitation of such networks is that their activity cannot immediately return to the initial state, a restriction that could hinder the processing of intervals presented in rapid succession. Empirical evidence in the literature consistently shows impaired duration discrimination performance for 100 ms intervals demarked by short auditory stimuli immediately preceded by a similar interval. Here we tested whether a similar interference is present with longer intervals (300 ms) demarked either by auditory or by visual stimuli. Our results show that while temporal estimates of auditory stimuli in this range are not affected by the interval between them, duration discrimination with this duration is significantly impaired with visual intervals presented in rapid succession. The difference in performance between modalities is overall consistent with state-dependent temporal computations, as it suggests that the limits due to slow neuronal dynamics greatly depends on the sensory modality with which the intervals are demarked, in line with the idea of intrinsic, modality-specific neural mechanisms for interval timing.
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.