Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41026461›Full record

ArticleCognitive processing2026

Psychophysical dissection of temporal error monitoring.

Tutku Öztel, Fuat Balcı

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive processing, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Tutku ÖztelDepartment of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, USA. toztel17@ku.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6474-5955
Fuat BalcıDepartment of Psychology, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3390-9352

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent line of research robustly demonstrated that humans and rodents can keep track of the magnitude and direction of timing errors, composing a temporal error monitoring ability (TEM). However, the degree of dissociation between these two measures of TEM has not been investigated at the level of the underlying mental magnitude metrics. Specifically, we do not know whether the two behavioral manifestations of TEM differentially rely on subjective vs. objective time, whether the discriminability of time intervals relies on ratio and absolute differences, respectively. To this end, we first tested whether behavioral manifestations of TEM depend on relative (cognitive timing) or absolute timing errors (sensorimotor timing). In light of our earlier findings showing differential metacognitive processing of timing errors as a function of different levels of agency, we also tested whether the potential information processing differences in TEM measures differ across different levels of agency of timing errors? In two different datasets, we found that magnitude and direction monitoring of timing errors relied on the absolute (i.e., arithmetic/linear) and relative (i.e., ratio) distances, respectively. These effects were more pronounced for owned versus unowned errors for timing error magnitude monitoring and timing error direction monitoring, respectively. Together, this study demonstrated that the timing error direction monitoring relies more on cognitive timing, whereas error magnitude monitoring relies more on sensorimotor timing.

Indexed as

MetacognitionPsychomotor PerformanceTime PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMalePsychophysicsTime FactorsYoung AdultBayesian information criterionError monitoringInterval timingTime perceptionWeber’s law

Identifiers

PMID41026461
PMCPMC12860838

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.