ArticlePloS one2018
Robustness of individual differences in temporal interference effects.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beware bisection: the direction of time-numerosity interactions depends on objective reference.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Near-optimal integration of the magnitude information of time and numerosity.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Cross-dimensional magnitude interaction is modulated by representational noise: evidence from space-time interaction.Psychological research · 2022Article
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
Magnitudes or quantities of the different dimensions that define a stimulus (e.g., space, speed or numerosity) influence the perceived duration of that stimulus, a phenomenon known as (temporal) interference effects. This complicates studying the neurobiological foundation of the perception of time, as any signatures of temporal processing are tainted by interfering dimensions. In earlier work, in which judgements on either time or numerosity were made while EEG was recorded, we used Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) to estimate, for each participant separately, the influence of temporal and numerical information on making duration or numerosity judgements. We found large individual differences in the estimated magnitudes, but ML-estimates allowed us to partial out interference effects. However, for such analyses, it is essential that estimates are meaningful and stable. Therefore, in the current study, we examined the reliability of the MLE procedure by comparing the interference magnitudes estimated in two sessions, spread a week apart. In addition to the standard paradigm, we also presented task variants in which the interfering dimension was manipulated, to assess which aspects of the numerosity dimension exert the largest influence on temporal processing. The results indicate that individual interference magnitudes are stable, both between sessions and over tasks. Further, the ML-estimates of the time-numerosity judgement tasks were predictive of performance in a standard temporal judgement task. Thus, how much temporal information participants use in time estimations tasks seems to be a stable trait that can be captured with the MLE procedure. ML-estimates are, however, not predictive of performance in other interference-tasks, here operationalized by a numerical Stroop task. Taken together, the MLE procedure is a reliable tool to quantify individual differences in magnitude interference effects and can therefore reliably inform the analysis of neuroimaging data when contrasts are needed between the accumulation of a temporal and an interfering dimension.
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.