The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Effect of Predictability on Subjective Duration
Open accessAbstract
Events can sometimes appear longer or shorter in duration than other events of equal length. For example, in a repeated presentation of auditory or visual stimuli, an unexpected object of equivalent duration appears to last longer. Illusions of duration distortion beg an important question of time representation: when durations dilate or contract, does time in general slow down or speed up during that moment? In other words, what entailments do duration distortions have with respect to other timing judgments? We here show that when a sound or visual flicker is presented in conjunction with an unexpected visual stimulus, neither the pitch of the sound nor the frequency of the flicker is affected by the apparent duration dilation. This demonstrates that subjective time in general is not slowed; instead, duration judgments can be manipulated with no concurrent impact on other temporal judgments. Like spatial vision, time perception appears to be underpinned by a collaboration of separate neural mechanisms that usually work in concert but are separable. We further show that the duration dilation of an unexpected stimulus is not enhanced by increasing its saliency, suggesting that the effect is more closely related to prediction violation than enhanced attention. Finally, duration distortions induced by violations of progressive number sequences implicate the involvement of high-level predictability, suggesting the involvement of areas higher than primary visual cortex. We suggest that duration distortions can be understood in terms of repetition suppression, in which neural responses to repeated stimuli are diminished.
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
Neural Mechanisms of Selective Visual Attention
Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205 · Cited by 8,388
Rao, R. P. N., & Ballard, D. H. (1999) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/4580 · Cited by 5,483 · cited 1×
“Our results with number sequences (Figure 5) suggest that the neural responses to predicted stimuli are suppressed [37] as though they were actually experienced.”
Result(2005) · CTIT technical reports series · Cited by 5,307
The amygdala: vigilance and emotion
Davis, M., & Whalen, P. J. (2001) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4000812 · Cited by 2,882
Repetition and the brain: neural models of stimulus-specific effects
Grill-Spector, K., Henson, R., & Martin, A. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.11.006 · Cited by 2,256
Treisman, M. (1963) · Psychological Monographs: General and Applied · doi:10.1037/h0093864 · Cited by 1,474
Cerebral mechanisms of word masking and unconscious repetition priming
Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Cohen, L., Bihan, D. L., Mangin, J.-F., Poline, J.-B., & Rivière, D. (2001) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/89551 · Cited by 1,305
Properties and mechanisms of perceptual priming
Wiggs, C. L., & Martin, A. (1998) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/s0959-4388(98)80144-x · Cited by 848
Neural mechanisms for detecting and remembering novel events
Ranganath, C., & Rainer, G. (2003) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1052 · Cited by 779
Toward a neurobiology of temporal cognition: advances and challenges
Gibbon, J., Malapani, C., Dale, C. L., & Gallistel, C. R. (1997) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/s0959-4388(97)80005-0 · Cited by 762
Cited by
Dedicated and intrinsic models of time perception
Ivry, R. B., & Schlerf, J. E. (2008) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.04.002 · Cited by 615
Modeling the auditory scene: predictive regularity representations and perceptual objects
Winkler, I., Denham, S. L., & Nelken, I. (2009) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.09.003 · Cited by 559
Temporal cognition: Connecting subjective time to perception, attention, and memory.
Matthews, W. J., & Meck, W. H. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000045 · Cited by 384
Is subjective duration a signature of coding efficiency?
Eagleman, D. M., & Pariyadath, V. (2009) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0026 · Cited by 254
Self-citationPredictive Coding in Sensory Cortex
Kok, P., & de Lange, F. P. (2015) · An Introduction to Model-Based Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2236-9_11 · Cited by 98
Metadata
- Authors
- Pariyadath, V., & Eagleman, D.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2007-11-28
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- e1264
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1974710999
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 36
- FWCI
- 4.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: The Effect of Predictability on Subjective Duration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0001264
- The paper
- Pariyadath, V., & Eagleman, D. (2007). The Effect of Predictability on Subjective Duration. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001264
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.