Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36222640›Full record

ArticleBehavioral neuroscience2022

Pupillometry tracks errors in interval timing.

Shamini Warda, Jaana Simola, Devin B Terhune

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Shamini WardaDepartment of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay.ORCID 0009-0001-5817-8624
Jaana SimolaDepartment of Education, University of Helsinki.ORCID 0000-0002-8273-685X
Devin B TerhuneDepartment of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London.ORCID 0000-0002-6792-4975
Goldsmiths University of London · GBIndian Institute of Technology Bombay · INUniversity of Helsinki · FI

Funding

Academy of Finland; The Strategic Research CouncilBBSRC
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent primate studies suggest a potential link between pupil size and subjectively elapsed duration. Here, we sought to investigate the relationship between pupil size and perceived duration in human participants performing two temporal bisection tasks in the subsecond and suprasecond interval ranges. In the subsecond task, pupil diameter was greater during stimulus processing when shorter intervals were overestimated but also during and after stimulus offset when longer intervals were underestimated. By contrast, in the suprasecond task, larger pupil diameter was observed only in the late stimulus offset phase prior to response prompts when longer intervals were underestimated. This pattern of results suggests that pupil diameter relates to an error monitoring mechanism in interval timing. These results are at odds with a direct relationship between pupil size and the perception of duration but suggest that pupillometric variation might play a key role in signifying errors related to temporal judgments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

JudgmentAnimalsHumans

Identifiers

PMID36222640
PMCPMC9552500
OpenAlexW4304588653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.