ArticleExperimental brain research2026
Temporal sensitivity and perceived timing in unimodal and crossmodal isochronous sequences.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Temporal judgments depend on sequence regularity and on the sensory modality in which events occur. We asked whether modality-specific sequence history and across-trial modality context make distinct contributions to temporal sensitivity and perceived timing in isochrony judgments. Participants judged whether the sixth event in a six-item sequence occurred earlier or later than expected. The first five events were auditory or visual; the final event either matched this modality or switched modality. The four sequence types were presented either in separate blocks or randomly interleaved across trials; this manipulation is referred to as presentation mode. Temporal sensitivity, indexed by the just noticeable difference (JND), was better for auditory than for visual sequences and better for modality-consistent than for modality-inconsistent sequences. Effects involving presentation mode were treated as descriptive because this factor was between participants and confounded with hardware settings. Perceived timing, indexed by the point of subjective equality (PSE), showed large shifts for modality-switch endings in the interleaved group. The results support a dissociation between sequence-related effects on temporal sensitivity and context-dependent biases in perceived timing.
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.