Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36471555›Full record

ArticlePerception2023

Slow motion bias: Exploring the relation between time overestimation and increased perceived intentionality.

Norman Hüttner, Laura Sperl, Anna Schroeger

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perception, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Norman Hüttner9378Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9697-3549
Laura SperlFernUniversität Hagen, Germany; 9378Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8618-7587
Anna Schroeger9378Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany; Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9876-8322
Friedrich Schiller University Jena · DEJustus-Liebig-Universität Gießen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent research on time perception has revealed that actions which are replayed in slow motion are perceived to take longer and rated to be more intentional (e.g., foul plays). Interestingly, the bias on duration estimations seems to disappear when information on the slow motion factor (i.e., the degree the video was slowed down) was provided. Here, we scrutinize the question whether also the intentionality bias disappears when explicit information about the slow motion factor is provided. To this end, two groups watched the same video clips, all displaying foul situations in a basketball match, in different video speeds. While the uninformed group saw the videos without further information, the informed group received additional information about the current slow motion factor. This study replicated the overestimation of original duration with increasing slow motion and indicated that this effect might be reduced when information about the slow motion factor is provided. However, despite generally lower intentionality ratings in the informed group, video speed information was not able to reduce the rise in intentionality ratings with increasing slow motion. Potential reasons and open questions regarding the nature and mechanisms behind these perceptual temporal biases (e.g., different time processing systems) are discussed.

Indexed as

Motion PerceptionTime PerceptionBiasHumansMotiondurationintentionalityoverestimation biasslow motionsubjective timetime estimationtime perceptionvideo speed

Identifiers

PMID36471555
PMCPMC9837152
OpenAlexW4310776309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.