The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Subsecond Timing in Primates: Comparison of Interval Production Between Human Subjects and Rhesus Monkeys
Open accessAbstract
This study describes the psychometric similarities and differences in motor timing performance between 20 human subjects and three rhesus monkeys during two timing production tasks. These tasks involved tapping on a push-button to produce the same set of intervals (range of 450 to 1,000 ms), but they differed in the number of intervals produced (single vs. multiple) and the modality of the stimuli (auditory vs. visual) used to define the time intervals. The data showed that for both primate species, variability increased as a function of the length of the produced target interval across tasks, a result in accordance with the scalar property. Interestingly, the temporal performance of rhesus monkeys was equivalent to that of human subjects during both the production of single intervals and the tapping synchronization to a metronome. Overall, however, human subjects were more accurate than monkeys and showed less timing variability. This was especially true during the self-pacing phase of the multiple interval production task, a behavior that may be related to complex temporal cognition, such as speech and music execution. In addition, the well-known human bias toward auditory as opposed to visual cues for the accurate execution of time intervals was not evident in rhesus monkeys. These findings validate the rhesus monkey as an appropriate model for the study of the neural basis of time production, but also suggest that the exquisite temporal abilities of humans, which peak in speech and music performance, are not all shared with macaques.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mountcastle, V. B., Lynch, J. C., Georgopoulos, A., Sakata, H., & Acuna, C. (1975) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.1975.38.4.871 · Cited by 2,061
Cortical control of a prosthetic arm for self-feeding
Velliste, M., Perel, S., Spalding, M. C., Whitford, A. S., & Schwartz, A. B. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06996 · Cited by 1,591
Functional Anatomy of the Attentional Modulation of Time Estimation
Coull, J. T., Vidal, F., Nazarian, B., & Macar, F. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1091573 · Cited by 642
A representation of the hazard rate of elapsed time in macaque area LIP
Janssen, P., & Shadlen, M. N. (2005) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1386 · Cited by 601
Cited by
Sensorimotor synchronization: a review of recent research (2006–2012).
Repp, B. H., & Su, Y.-H. (2013) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0371-2 · Cited by 1,204
Patel, A. D., & Iversen, J. R. (2014) · Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnsys.2014.00057 · Cited by 516
The Evolution of Rhythm Processing
Kotz, S. A., Ravignani, A., & Fitch, W. T. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.08.002 · Cited by 304
The evolutionary biology of musical rhythm: was Darwin wrong?
Patel, A. D. (2014) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001821 · Cited by 145
Metadata
- Authors
- Zarco, W., Merchant, H., Prado, L., & Mendez, J. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurophysiology
- Publisher
- American Physiological Society
- Published
- 2009-12
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 3191-3202
- ISSN
- 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-1598
- OpenAlex
- W2138245196
- Cited by
- 222
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 3.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Subsecond Timing in Primates: Comparison of Interval Production Between Human Subjects and Rhesus Monkeys. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1152/jn.00066.2009
- The paper
- Zarco, W., Merchant, H., Prado, L., & Mendez, J. C. (2009). Subsecond Timing in Primates: Comparison of Interval Production Between Human Subjects and Rhesus Monkeys. Journal of Neurophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00066.2009
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.