MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385477528 · doi:10.1007/s00221-023-06676-9

Psychophysiological stress influences temporal accuracy

2023· article· en· W4385477528 on OpenAlexaff
Nicola Cellini, Simon Grondin, Franca Stablum, Michela Sarlo, Giovanna Mioni

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Brain Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersUniversità degli Studi di Padova
KeywordsAudiologyPsychologyArousalBisectionTime perceptionTask (project management)PerceptionStress (linguistics)Analysis of varianceDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distortions of duration perception are often observed in response to highly arousing stimuli, but the exact mechanisms that evoke these variations are still under debate. Here, we investigate the effect of induced physiological arousal on time perception. Thirty-eight university students (22.89 ± 2.5; 28 females) were tested with spontaneous finger-tapping tasks and a time bisection task (with stimuli between 300 and 900 ms). Before the time bisection task, half of the participants (STRESS group) performed a stress-inducing task, i.e., the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT), whereas the other participants (CONTROL group) performed a control task, the Paced Auditory Number Reading Task (PANRAT). The PASAT induced a greater heart rate, but not electrodermal, increase, as well as a more unpleasant and arousing state compared to the PANRAT. Moreover, although the two groups presented a similar performance at the finger-tapping tasks, participants in the STRESS group showed better temporal performance at the time bisection task (i.e., lower constant error) than the controls. These results indicate that psychophysiological stress may alter the subsequent perception of time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.287
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental Brain ResearchSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207