ArticleScientific reports2018
A tRNS investigation of the sensory representation of time.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of emotion intensity on time perception: a study with transcranial random noise stimulation.Experimental brain research · 2023Article
- Non-invasive brain stimulation for osteoarthritis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022Review
- Modulation of Individual Alpha Frequency with tACS shifts Time Perception.Cerebral cortex communications · 2020Article
- Beyond the target area: an integrative view of tDCS-induced motor cortex modulation in patients and athletes.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2019Review
- A diffusion-model analysis of timing deficits among children with ADHD.Neuropsychology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The understanding of the mechanisms underlying the representation of temporal intervals in the range of milliseconds/seconds remains a complex issue. Different brain areas have been identified as critical in temporal processing. The activation of specific areas is depending on temporal range involved in the tasks and on the modalities used for marking time. Here, for the first time, transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) was applied over the right posterior parietal (P4) and right frontal (F4) cortex to investigate their role in intra- and intermodal temporal processing involving brief temporal intervals (<1 sec). Eighty University students performed a time bisection task involving standard durations lasting 300 ms (short) and 900 ms (long). Each empty interval to be judged was marked by two successive brief visual (V) or auditory (A) signals defining four conditions: VV, VA, AV or AA. Participants were assigned to one of these four conditions. Half of the participants received tRNS over P4 and half over F4. No effect of stimulation was observed on temporal variability (Weber ratio). However, participants that were stimulated over P4 overestimated temporal intervals in the random condition compared to the sham condition. In addition to showing an effect of tRNS on perceived duration rather than on temporal variability, the results of the present study confirm that the right posterior parietal cortex is involved in the processing of time intervals and extend this finding to several sensory modality conditions.
Indexed as
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.