Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40664733›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

The role of physical and cognitive effort on time perception.

Tommaso Bartolini, Irene Petrizzo, Roberto Arrighi, Giovanni Anobile

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Tommaso BartoliniItalian Institute of Technology, U-VIP Unit for Visually Impaired People, Genoa, Italy.
Irene PetrizzoCenter for Mind/Brain Science, University of Trento, Corso Bettini, 31, 38068, Rovereto, Italy. irene.petrizzo@unitn.it.
Roberto ArrighiDepartment of Neuroscience, Psychology, Pharmacology and Child Health, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Giovanni AnobileDepartment of Neuroscience, Psychology, Pharmacology and Child Health, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Action and perception are intertwined, and time perception is not an exception to this general principle. In line with that, we have recently reported that the perceived duration of visual stimuli is extended while running. Here we tested the nature of this phenomenon by contrasting two possibilities: one related to physiological changes induced by physical effort (e.g. heart rate, temperature, arousal), and one related to cognitive alterations linked to motor control. To this aim we compared the direction and magnitude of the temporal bias induced by running to that prompted by other two conditions requiring much lower physical effort but both depleting cognitive resources. In these two conditions, participants either performed the timing task while walking backwards (an attentional motor task) or standing still with cognitive resources divided in a concurrent visual-working memory task. Both conditions yielded temporal overestimations virtually identical to that found while running, suggesting that physical activity could modulate temporal processing through the cognitive effort required to perform/control that specific motor routine. The results are informative for the scientific community investigating time perception in ecological sensorimotor contexts, suggesting the importance of considering the potential confounding role of cognitive factors related to motor execution.

Indexed as

CognitionPhysical ExertionTime PerceptionAdultAttentionFemaleHeart RateHumansMaleMemory, Short-TermPsychomotor PerformanceRunningYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40664733
PMCPMC12263971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.