ArticlePeerJ2020
Sports experts' unique perception of time duration based on the processing principle of an integrated model of timing.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tai Chi training is associated with altered neural resource allocation in temporal information maintenance.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
- The mind's clock in sport: a narrative review of temporal processing across athletic disciplines.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Review
- Sub- and Supra-Second Duration Perception of Implied Motion: Differences Between Athletes and Non-Athletes.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Effects of Physical and Mental Fatigue on Time Perception.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuration perception is an essential part of our cognitive and behavioral system, helping us interact with the outside world. An integrated model of timing, which states that the perceived duration of a given stimulus is based on the efficiency of information extraction, was recently set forth to improve current understanding of the representation and judgment of time. However, the prediction from this model that more efficient information extraction results in longer perceived duration has not been tested. Thus, the aim of this study is to investigate whether sports experts, as a group of individuals with information extraction superiority in situations relevant to their sport skill, have longer duration perceptions when they view expertise-related stimuli compared with others with no expertise/experience.
methodsFor this study, 81 subjects were recruited based on a prior power analysis. The sports experts group had 27 athletes with years of professional training in diving; a wrestler group and a nonathlete group, with each of these groups having 27 subjects, were used as controls. All participants completed a classic duration reproduction task for subsecond and suprasecond durations with both the diving images and general images involved.
resultsThe divers reproduced longer durations for diving stimuli compared with general stimuli under both subsecond and suprasecond time ranges, while the other samples showed the opposite pattern. Furthermore, the years of training in diving were positively correlated with the magnitude of the prolonged reproduction duration when divers viewed diving stimuli. Moreover, the diver group showed a more precise duration perception in subsecond time range for general stimuli compared with the wrestlers and nonathletes.
conclusionThe results suggest that sports experts perceive longer duration when viewing expertise-related stimuli compared with others with no expertise/experience.
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.