Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38272676›Full record

ArticleeNeuro2024

Time for What? Dissociating Explicit Timing Tasks through Electrophysiological Signatures.

Fernanda D Bueno, Anna C Nobre, André M Cravo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Fernanda D BuenoCenter for Mathematics, Computing and Cognition (CMCC), Federal University of ABC (UFABC), São Bernardo do Campo 09606-045, Brazil.
Anna C NobreOxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7JX, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5762-2802
André M CravoCenter for Mathematics, Computing and Cognition (CMCC), Federal University of ABC (UFABC), São Bernardo do Campo 09606-045, Brazil andre.cravo@ufabc.edu.br.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8580-5697

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

Time PerceptionElectroencephalographyHumansEEGperceptiontiming

Identifiers

PMID38272676
PMCPMC10884563

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.