ArticleScientific reports2023
Distinct brain dynamics and networks for processing short and long auditory time intervals.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Common electrophysiological signatures of relative magnitude in both space and time.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Discrimination of time intervals in musicians and non-musicians: A multimodal approach.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Perception of short, but not long, time intervals is modality specific: EEG evidence using vibrotactile stimuli.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
- Neural mechanisms underlying synchronization of movement to musical cues in Parkinson disease and aging.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Influence of musical training on temporal productions when using fast and slow counting paces.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Psychophysical studies suggest that time intervals above and below 1.2 s are processed differently in the human brain. However, the neural underpinnings of this dissociation remain unclear. Here, we investigate whether distinct or common brain networks and dynamics support the passive perception of short (below 1.2 s) and long (above 1.2 s) empty time intervals. Twenty participants underwent an EEG recording during an auditory oddball paradigm with .8- and 1.6-s standard time intervals and deviant intervals either shorter (early) or longer (delayed) than the standard interval. We computed the auditory ERPs for each condition at the sensor and source levels. We then performed whole brain cluster-based permutation statistics for the CNV, N1 and P2, components, testing deviants against standards. A CNV was found only for above 1.2 s intervals (delayed deviants), with generators in temporo-parietal, SMA, and motor regions. Deviance detection of above 1.2 s intervals occurred during the N1 period over fronto-central sensors for delayed deviants only, with generators in parietal and motor regions. Deviance detection of below 1.2 s intervals occurred during the P2 period over fronto-central sensors for delayed deviants only, with generators in primary auditory cortex, SMA, IFG, cingulate and parietal cortex. We then identified deviance related changes in directed connectivity using bivariate Granger causality to highlight the networks dynamics associated with interval processing above and below 1.2. These results suggest that distinct brain dynamics and networks support the perception of time intervals above and below 1.2 s.
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.