Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38263171›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Cognitive effects on experienced duration and speed of time, prospectively, retrospectively, in and out of lockdown.

Cyril Nicolaï, Maximilien Chaumon, Virginie van Wassenhove

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Cyril NicolaïNeuroSpin, Cognitive Neuroimaging Unit, CEA, INSERM, Université Paris-Saclay, 91191, Gif/Yvette, France. cyril.nicolai@outlook.fr.
Maximilien ChaumonInstitut du Cerveau, ICM, INSERM, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, APHP, CENIR, 75013, Paris, France.
Virginie van WassenhoveNeuroSpin, Cognitive Neuroimaging Unit, CEA, INSERM, Université Paris-Saclay, 91191, Gif/Yvette, France. virginie.van.wassenhove@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychological time is influenced by multiple factors such as arousal, emotion, attention and memory. While laboratory observations are well documented, it remains unclear whether cognitive effects on time perception replicate in real-life settings. This study exploits a set of data collected online during the Covid-19 pandemic, where participants completed a verbal working memory (WM) task in which their cognitive load was manipulated using a parametric n-back (1-back, 3-back). At the end of every WM trial, participants estimated the duration of that trial and rated the speed at which they perceived time was passing. In this within-participant design, we initially tested whether the amount of information stored in WM affected time perception in opposite directions depending on whether duration was estimated prospectively (i.e., when participants attend to time) or retrospectively (i.e., when participants do not attend to time). Second, we tested the same working hypothesis for the felt passage of time, which may capture a distinct phenomenology. Third, we examined the link between duration and speed of time, and found that short durations tended to be perceived as fast. Last, we contrasted two groups of individuals tested in and out of lockdown to evaluate the impact of social isolation. We show that duration and speed estimations were differentially affected by social isolation. We discuss and conclude on the influence of cognitive load on various experiences of time.

Indexed as

PandemicsTime PerceptionArousalCognitionHumansRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID38263171
PMCPMC10805715

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.