ArticlePloS one2019
Dissociating the sequential dependency of subjective temporal order from subjective simultaneity.
Article in PloS one, 2019. 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.
- Synchrony perception of audiovisual speech is a reliable, yet individual construct.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A guideline for linking brain wave findings to the various aspects of discrete perception.The European journal of neuroscience · 2022Review
- Multisensory correlation computations in the human brain identified by a time-resolved encoding model.Nature communications · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The physical simultaneity between two events can differ from our point of subjective simultaneity (PSS). Studies using simultaneity judgments (SJ) and temporal order judgments (TOJ) tasks have shown that whether two events are reported as simultaneous is highly context-dependent. It has been recently suggested that the interval between the two events in the previous trial can modulate judgments both in SJ and TOJ tasks, an effect named rapid recalibration. In this work, we investigated rapid recalibration in SJ and TOJ tasks and tested whether centering the range of presented intervals on perceived simultaneity modulated this effect. We found a rapid recalibration effect in TOJ, but not in SJ. Moreover, we found that centering the intervals on objective or subjective simultaneity did not change the pattern of results. Interestingly, we also found no correlations between an individual's PSS in TOJ and in SJ tasks, which corroborates other studies in suggesting that these two psychophysical measures may capture different processes.
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.