ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2024
Rapid calibration to dynamic temporal contexts.
Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- As time goes by: SMA neuromodulation and time perception while watching moving images with different editing styles. A tDCS study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prediction of future events and the preparation of appropriate behavioural reactions rely on an accurate perception of temporal regularities. In dynamic environments, temporal regularities are subject to slow and sudden changes, and adaptation to these changes is an important requirement for efficient behaviour. Bayesian models have proven a useful tool to understand the processing of temporal regularities in humans; yet an open question pertains to the degree of flexibility of the prior that is required for optimal modelling of behaviour. Here we directly compare dynamic models (with continuously changing prior expectations) and static models (a stable prior for each experimental session) with their ability to describe regression effects in interval timing. Our results show that dynamic Bayesian models are superior when describing the responses to slow, continuous environmental changes, whereas static models are more suitable to describe responses to sudden changes. In time perception research, these results will be informative for the choice of adequate computational models and enhance our understanding of the neuronal computations underlying human timing behaviour.
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.