Time Flies When We Intend to Act: Temporal Distortion in a Go/No-Go Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many of our actions are triggered by sensory events, almost nothing is known about our perception of the timing of those sensory events. Here we show that, when people react to a sudden visual stimulus that triggers an action, that stimulus is perceived to occur later than an identical stimulus that does not trigger an action. In our experiments, participants fixated the center of a clock face with a rotating second hand. When the clock changed color, they were required to make a motor response and then to report the position of the second hand at the moment the clock changed color. In Experiment 1, in which participants made a target-directed saccade, the color change was perceived to occur 59 ms later than when they maintained fixation. In Experiment 2, in which we used a go/no-go paradigm, this temporal distortion was observed even when participants were required to cancel a prepared saccade. Finally, in Experiment 3, the same distortion in perceived time was observed for both go and no-go trials in a manual task in which no eye movements were required. These results suggest that, when a visual stimulus triggers an action, it is perceived to occur significantly later than an identical stimulus unrelated to action. Moreover, this temporal distortion appears to be related not to the execution of the action (or its effect) but rather to the programming of the action. In short, there seems to be a temporal binding between a triggering event and the triggered action.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".