Changes in the experience of time: The impact of spatial information on the perception and memory of duration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it is understood that our experience of time is fluid and subjective, the cognitive mechanisms underlying this phenomenon are not well described. Based on event segmentation theory, we tested the hypothesis that changes in the context, particularly the spatial context, of an experience impact how an individual perceives (encodes) and remembers the length of that event. A group of participants viewed short videos of scenes from movies that either contained shifts in spatial context (e.g., characters moving through doorways) or did not contain any shifts in spatial context. In one task, participants estimated a randomly selected time duration (between 10 and 23 s) when encoding these videos. In a second task, the same participants estimated the duration of the videos after viewing them. We found that even though the presence of spatial shifts impacted how time was perceived, the nature of this effect differed as a function of task. Specifically, when time was estimated at encoding, these estimates were longer for videos that did not contain spatial shifts compared with those with spatial shifts. However, when these estimates were made at retrieval, durations were reported as longer for videos with spatial context shifts than those without. A second experiment replicated these main findings in a new sample. We interpret these results as providing new evidence for theories on how context changes, particularly those in spatial information, distort the experience of time differently during the encoding and retrieval phases of memory.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it