Articlei-Perception
Quantifying uncertainty in time perception: A modified reproduction method.
Article in i-Perception. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Presentation time shapes perceived room size in visual and auditory modalities.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
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
In time perception research, we typically measure how an observer perceives time intervals by collecting data from multiple trials with a single estimate recorded on each. However, this gives us limited information about the observer's uncertainty for each estimate, which we usually measure from the variability across trials. Our study tested the potential of a modified reproduction task to provide a duration estimate as well as a measure of uncertainty on a single-trial basis. Participants were instructed to press and hold a key to temporally bracket the end of a learned duration (0.6-4 s) as narrowly as possible. Therefore, we expected the bracket's length to indicate the level of uncertainty. We compared this method to a conventional reproduction task. Taking the mid-point of the bracket as the duration estimate, we found that both methods produced equivalent data. Critically, the bracket length predicted reproduction variability, indicating that a single bracket obtained in an individual trial could potentially provide as much information as multiple reproductions. Additionally, relative variability in bracket start and end positions suggests a combination of additive and multiplicative noise components. Our findings highlight the bracket method as a more efficient and nuanced approach to measure time estimates and their associated uncertainty, expanding the methodological toolkit and opening new avenues in time perception research.
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.