ArticleScientific reports2025
Common electrophysiological signatures of relative magnitude in both space and time.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Duration processing can be indexed by the amplitude of two electrophysiological potentials, the contingent negative variation (CNV) and the late positive component (LPC). When a currently elapsing event becomes longer than that of a memorized standard, CNV amplitude begins to resolve back to baseline even if the event is not yet over, and LPC amplitude, evoked by event offset, is reduced. Using electroencephalography in 30 human participants, we examined whether these patterns were unique to explicit duration judgements or might also be observed during spatial judgements. Two dynamic visual stimuli were presented consecutively on each trial. The relative duration (temporal task) or distance (spatial task) of the second stimulus was compared to the first. Confirming prior findings, CNV dynamics and LPC amplitude reflected the relative duration of the two stimuli. However, this occurred only when duration was task-relevant during the temporal task, not when it was irrelevant during the spatial task. Moreover, CNV and LPC activity indexed relative distance only when distance was task-relevant in the spatial (not temporal) task. Together these results suggest that CNV and LPC dynamics reflect domain-general mechanisms for processing the magnitude of task-relevant stimulus features, whether in the temporal (duration) or spatial (distance) dimension.
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.