Cited by 98Neural dynamics and brain functionNeuroscience and Music PerceptionEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

The brain timewise: how timing shapes and supports brain function

Open access
Hari, Riitta, Parkkonen, Lauri·2015·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

We discuss the importance of timing in brain function: how temporal dynamics of the world has left its traces in the brain during evolution and how we can monitor the dynamics of the human brain with non-invasive measurements. Accurate timing is important for the interplay of neurons, neuronal circuitries, brain areas and human individuals. In the human brain, multiple temporal integration windows are hierarchically organized, with temporal scales ranging from microseconds to tens and hundreds of milliseconds for perceptual, motor and cognitive functions, and up to minutes, hours and even months for hormonal and mood changes. Accurate timing is impaired in several brain diseases. From the current repertoire of non-invasive brain imaging methods, only magnetoencephalography (MEG) and scalp electroencephalography (EEG) provide millisecond time-resolution; our focus in this paper is on MEG. Since the introduction of high-density whole-scalp MEG/EEG coverage in the 1990s, the instrumentation has not changed drastically; yet, novel data analyses are advancing the field rapidly by shifting the focus from the mere pinpointing of activity hotspots to seeking stimulus- or task-specific information and to characterizing functional networks. During the next decades, we can expect increased spatial resolution and accuracy of the time-resolved brain imaging and better understanding of brain function, especially its temporal constraints, with the development of novel instrumentation and finer-grained, physiologically inspired generative models of local and network activity. Merging both spatial and temporal information with increasing accuracy and carrying out recordings in naturalistic conditions, including social interaction, will bring much new information about human brain function.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2014.0170

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Proper Bayesian inference in complex state spaces would require extensive computation time, creating a fundamental temporal mismatch with the brain's millisecond responses.

    “The brain must respond to environmental challenges within milliseconds, while proper Bayesian inference in complex state spaces would require extensive computation time, creating a fundamental temporal mismatch (Csicsvari et al. 1999; Hari and Parkkonen 2015).”

    From The myth of the Bayesian brain (2025) · cites this paper as Hari and Parkkonen 2015

    In “Perception, action and cognition” (page unavailable), the paper says millisecond timing is needed for some movements and perception, while noting that other sensory processing tolerates longer intervals. “Timewise insights into brain function” discusses making detailed models computationally tractable and mentions Bayesian inference, but does not say that Bayesian inference in complex state spaces takes too long for the brain’s millisecond responses or establishes a temporal mismatch. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hari, R., & Parkkonen, L.
Affiliations
Aalto University (FI)
Corresponding author
Hari, Riitta
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2015-05-19
Volume
370
Issue
1668
Pages
20140170
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W1980035298
Cited by
98
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
neural timing, magnetoencephalography, EEG, millisecond time resolution, temporal integration window, functional brain networks, non-invasive brain imaging, social interaction, brain evolution
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Electroencephalography, Humans, Nerve Net, Time Factors, Magnetoencephalography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review