ArticleScientific reports2022
Malleability of time through progress bars and throbbers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Malleability and fluidity of time perception.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Compared to a stationary pattern, a moving pattern dilates the perception of time. However, when it comes to comparing only moving stimulus, the exact dilation effects are less clear. The time dilation may be attributed to either speed of motion, temporal and spatial frequency, stimulus complexity, or the number of changes in the stimulus pattern. In the present study, we used progress bars and throbbers for inducing impressions of fast and slow "apparent" motions while the speed of motion and distance covered was actually equivalent across all conditions. The results indicate that higher number of steps produced the impression of a faster progression leading to an underestimation of time, whereas a progression in large fewer steps, produced slower apparent progression, creating the illusion of dilated time. We suggest that the perception of time depends on the nature of the stimulus rather than the speed of motion or the distance covered by the stimulus.
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.