ArticleeNeuro2024
Time for What? Dissociating Explicit Timing Tasks through Electrophysiological Signatures.
Article in eNeuro, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-report measures of subjective time: An overview of existing measures and their semantic similarities.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Serial dependence during visuomotor integration is robust to the passage of time and interference from intervening tasks.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Estimating durations between hundreds of milliseconds and seconds is essential for several daily tasks. Explicit timing tasks, which require participants to estimate durations to make a comparison (time for perception) or to reproduce them (time for action), are often used to investigate psychological and neural timing mechanisms. Recent studies have proposed that mechanisms may depend on specific task requirements. In this study, we conducted electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings on human participants as they estimated intervals in different task contexts to investigate the extent to which timing mechanisms depend on the nature of the task. We compared the neural processing of identical visual reference stimuli in two different tasks, in which stimulus durations were either perceptually compared or motorically reproduced in separate experimental blocks. Using multivariate pattern analyses, we could successfully decode the duration and the task of reference stimuli. We found evidence for both overlapping timing mechanisms across tasks as well as recruitment of task-dependent processes for comparing intervals for different purposes. Our findings suggest both core and specialized timing functions are recruited to support explicit timing tasks.
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.