ArticleScientific reports2025
Time perception in cerebellar and basal ganglia stroke patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Combined repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and mirror therapy for upper limb rehabilitation in stroke survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Pooled it
- Hypnotizability and Time Reproduction.Cerebellum (London, England) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The neural mechanisms underlying time perception remain elusive. Although the cerebellum (CE) and basal ganglia (BG) are considered fundamental, evidence primarily stems from studies on neurodegenerative diseases, where progressive and widespread damage complicates linking deficits to specific brain structures. In contrast, brain stroke affects focal areas suddenly, allowing for the assessment of immediate functional consequences. Here, we compared patients with acute stroke in the CE and BG to age-matched healthy controls (HC) on both explicit (time bisection, free and 1-second finger tapping) and implicit (rhythmic, temporal orienting) timing tasks. Concerning explicit timing, both CE and BG patients were faster than HC in their free finger tapping, while BG lesions showed greater variability than HC in the 1-second tapping. Similarly, performance on the bisection task suggested deficits more related to cognitive complaints in stroke than specific temporal dysfunction. In implicit timing tasks, BG patients, like HC, effectively used information provided by the rhythm and the temporal orienting cues to anticipate the target onset, whereas CE patients failed and showed longer reaction times. Therefore, before compensatory mechanisms can take effect, acute CE damage might hinder implicit timing, whereas BG lesions could disrupt explicit temporal representation when processed alongside other cognitive functions.
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.