ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2024
Same principle, but different computations in representing time and space.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Neural networks underlying magnitude perception: a specific meta-analysis of fMRI studies.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Decoding time from space: A review of the complication clock and its representation of temporal experience.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Time and space are two intertwined contexts that frame our cognition of the world and have shared mechanisms. A well-known theory on this case is "A Theory of Magnitude (ATOM)" which states that the perception of these two domains shares common mechanisms. However, evidence regarding shared computations of time and space is intermixed. To investigate this issue, we asked human subjects to reproduce time and distance intervals with saccadic eye movements in similarly designed tasks. We applied an observer model to both modalities and found underlying differences in the processing of time and space. While time and space computations are both probabilistic, adding priors to space perception minimally improved model performance, as opposed to time perception which was consistently better explained by Bayesian computations. We also showed that while both measurement and motor variability were smaller in distance than time reproduction, only the motor variability was correlated between them, as both tasks used saccadic eye movements for response. Our results suggest that time and space perception abide by the same algorithm but have different computational properties.
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.