ArticleScientific reports2018
Time and distance estimation in children using an egocentric navigation task.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Journey Into a Traveler's Mental Map: Duration, Distance, and Speed Experienced in High-Speed Trains.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Static Estimation of Vista-Space Egocentric Distance with Iterative Feedback: A Cognitive-Perceptual Task.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Same principle, but different computations in representing time and space.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Combination and competition between path integration and landmark navigation in the estimation of heading direction.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- A virtual reality time reproduction task for rodents.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
- Naturalistic neuroscience and virtual reality.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2022Review
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Navigation crucially depends on the capability to estimate time elapsed and distance covered during movement. From adults it is known that magnitude estimation is subject to characteristic biases. Most intriguing is the regression effect (central tendency), whose strength depends on the stimulus distribution (i.e. stimulus range), a second characteristic of magnitude estimation known as range effect. We examined regression and range effects for time and distance estimation in eleven-year-olds and young adults, using an egocentric virtual navigation task. Regression effects were stronger for distance compared to time and depended on stimulus range. These effects were more pronounced in children compared to adults due to a more heterogeneous performance among the children. Few children showed veridical estimations similar to adults; most children, however, performed less accurate displaying stronger regression effects. Our findings suggest that children use magnitude processing strategies similar to adults, but it seems that these are not yet fully developed in all eleven-year-olds and are further refined throughout adolescence.
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.