ArticleExperimental brain research2021
Using adaptive psychophysics to identify the neural network reset time in subsecond interval timing.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2021. 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.
- Stimulus (dis)similarity can modify the effect of a task-irrelevant sandwiching stimulus on the perceived duration of brief visual stimuli.Experimental brain research · 2023Article
- Context-specific and context-invariant computations of interval timing.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- The temporal context in bayesian models of interval timing: Recent advances and future directions.Behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
- Systematic errors in the perception of rhythm.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
Abstract
State-dependent network models of sub-second interval timing propose that duration is encoded in states of neuronal populations that need to reset prior to a novel timing operation to maintain optimal timing performance. Previous research has shown that the approximate boundary of this reset interval can be inferred by varying the inter-stimulus interval between two to-be-timed intervals. However, the estimated boundary of this reset interval is broad (250-500 ms) and remains under-specified with implications for the characteristics of state-dependent network dynamics sub-serving interval timing. Here, we probed the interval specificity of this reset boundary by manipulating the inter-stimulus interval between standard and comparison intervals in two sub-second auditory duration discrimination tasks (100 and 200 ms) and a control (pitch) discrimination task using adaptive psychophysics. We found that discrimination thresholds improved with the introduction of a 333 ms inter-stimulus interval relative to a 250 ms inter-stimulus interval in both duration discrimination tasks, but not in the control task. This effect corroborates previous findings of a breakpoint in the discrimination performance for sub-second stimulus interval pairs as a function of an incremental inter-stimulus delay but more precisely localizes the minimal inter-stimulus delay range. These results suggest that state-dependent networks sub-serving sub-second timing require approximately 250-333 ms for the network to reset to maintain optimal interval timing.
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.