ArticleScientific reports2025
Differential effects of top-down crossmodal attention on subjective timing of semantic and syntactic violations.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prior knowledge violations about the world's consistency can distort subjective time perception. Scenes containing contextually irrelevant objects (i.e., semantic violations) are typically underestimated in duration (i.e., perceived shorter), whereas those violating basic spatial norms (i.e., syntactic violations) are often overestimated (i.e., perceived longer) as compared to standard scenes without violations. Previous research has shown that directing attention toward such violations through low-level attentional manipulations can dilate their perceived duration. However, it remains unclear whether top-down attentional manipulations can produce a similar effect, especially given evidence suggesting a reduced influence of top-down attention in the presence of semantic and syntactic violations. Here, we examined the effect of top-down attention via crossmodal stimulation on time estimations of both semantic and syntactic violations. We utilized a temporal oddball paradigm where participants viewed sequences of naturalistic scenes with or without violations (semantic or syntactic). Each sequence included a violation scene (i.e., oddball) paired with white noise (i.e., control) or a sound that matched (i.e., congruent) or mismatched (i.e., incongruent) the target violation to manipulate top-down attention via crossmodal stimulation. Participants judged whether the oddball's duration was shorter or longer than the no violation scenes. Analyses showed no differences in the perceived duration of syntactic violations scenes across the different types of auditory stimulation, a finding that is attributed to a diminished top-down attentional effect on scenes with syntactic violation given possibly to their higher perceptual load. Semantic violations, however, demonstrated sensitivity to crossmodal influence, where incongruent sound pairings led to interval overestimations as compared to congruent pairings. This suggests that crossmodal conflict enhanced attention toward the violations, leading to longer perceived durations. Our findings highlight the distinct susceptibility of semantic versus syntactic violations to top-down modulation in the temporal domain.
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.