ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2023
The role of consciously timed movements in shaping and improving auditory timing.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- No aftereffect of motor duration production on auditory duration perception.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- From finger to whole-body movements: How movement type affects our sense of time.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Interoceptive and Bodily Processing in Prospective and Retrospective Timing.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2025Review
- Article
- Towards a neurodevelopmental cognitive perspective of temporal processing.Communications biology · 2024Review
- Memorability shapes perceived time (and vice versa).Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Article
- Near-optimal integration of the magnitude information of time and numerosity.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- The role of consciously timed movements in shaping and improving auditory timing.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Our subjective sense of time is intertwined with a plethora of perceptual, cognitive and motor functions, and likewise, the brain is equipped to expertly filter, weight and combine these signals for seamless interactions with a dynamic world. Until relatively recently, the literature on time perception has excluded the influence of simultaneous motor activity, yet it has been found that motor circuits in the brain are at the core of most timing functions. Several studies have now identified that concurrent movements exert robust effects on perceptual timing estimates, but critically have not assessed how humans consciously judge the duration of their own movements. This creates a gap in our understanding of the mechanisms driving movement-related effects on sensory timing. We sought to address this gap by administering a sensorimotor timing task in which we explicitly compared the timing of isolated auditory tones and arm movements, or both simultaneously. We contextualized our findings within a Bayesian cue combination framework, in which separate sources of temporal information are weighted by their reliability and integrated into a unitary time estimate that is more precise than either unisensory estimate. Our results revealed differences in accuracy between auditory, movement and combined trials, and (crucially) that combined trials were the most accurately timed. Under the Bayesian framework, we found that participants' combined estimates were more precise than isolated estimates, yet were sub-optimal when compared with the model's prediction, on average. These findings elucidate previously unknown qualities of conscious motor timing and propose computational mechanisms that can describe how movements combine with perceptual signals to create unified, multimodal experiences of time.
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.