ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2023
Time estimation during motor activity.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impaired micro-online motor learning processes in individuals with severe anxiety.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Effects of physical effort on temporal processing.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2025Article
- Time-warping analysis for biological signals: methodology and application.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several studies on time estimation showed that the estimation of temporal intervals is related to the amount of attention devoted to time. This is explained by the scalar timing theory, which assumes that attention alters the number of pulses transferred by our internal clock to an accumulator that keeps track of the elapsed time. In a previous study, it was found that time underestimation during cognitive-demanding tasks was more pronounced while walking than while sitting, whereas no clear motor-induced effects emerged without a concurrent cognitive task. What remains unclear then is the motor interference itself on time estimation. Here we aim to clarify how the estimation of time can be influenced by demanding motor mechanisms and how different motor activities interact with concurrent cognitive tasks during time estimation. To this purpose, we manipulated simultaneously the difficulty of the cognitive task (solving arithmetic operations) and the motor task. We used an automated body movement that should require no motor or mental effort, a more difficult movement that requires some motor control, and a highly demanding movement requiring motor coordination and attention. We compared the effects of these three types of walking on time estimation accuracy and uncertainty, arithmetic performance, and reaction times. Our findings confirm that time estimation is affected by the difficulty of the cognitive task whereas we did not find any evidence that time estimation changes with the complexity of our motor task, nor an interaction between walking and the concurrent cognitive tasks. We can conclude that walking, although highly demanding, does not have the same effects as other mental tasks on time estimation.
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.