Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36473982›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

A perceptual glitch in serial perception generates temporal distortions.

Franklenin Sierra, R Muralikrishnan, David Poeppel, Alessandro Tavano

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 56% 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, 1 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Franklenin SierraDepartment of Neuroscience, Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt am Main, HE, Germany. franklenin.sierra@gmail.com.
R MuralikrishnanDepartment of Neuroscience, Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt am Main, HE, Germany.
David PoeppelDepartment of Psychology, New York University, New York City, NY, USA.
Alessandro TavanoDepartment of Neuroscience, Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt am Main, HE, Germany.
Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics · DEErnst Strüngmann Institute for Neuroscience · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Precisely estimating event timing is essential for survival, yet temporal distortions are ubiquitous in our daily sensory experience. Here, we tested whether the relative position, duration, and distance in time of two sequentially-organized events-standard S, with constant duration, and comparison C, with duration varying trial-by-trial-are causal factors in generating temporal distortions. We found that temporal distortions emerge when the first event is shorter than the second event. Importantly, a significant interaction suggests that a longer inter-stimulus interval (ISI) helps to counteract such serial distortion effect only when the constant S is in the first position, but not if the unpredictable C is in the first position. These results imply the existence of a perceptual bias in perceiving ordered event durations, mechanistically contributing to distortion in time perception. We simulated our behavioral results with a Bayesian model and replicated the finding that participants disproportionately expand first-position dynamic (unpredictable) short events. Our results clarify the mechanisms generating time distortions by identifying a hitherto unknown duration-dependent encoding inefficiency in human serial temporal perception, something akin to a strong prior that can be overridden for highly predictable sensory events but unfolds for unpredictable ones.

Indexed as

PerceptionBayes TheoremHumans

Identifiers

PMID36473982
PMCPMC9726903
OpenAlexW4311589105

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.