Time perception among people living with and without dementia: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dementia often manifests with profound alterations in perception, but it is unclear if and to what extent time perception is altered among people living with dementia compared to those experiencing normal aging. Thus, this scoping review aimed to answer the following research questions: (1) What study designs, participants, time intervals, paradigms, tests, and scores have been employed and in which countries were these methods employed to study time perception in dementia? (2) In which ways do time perception differ across individuals living with and without dementia? (3) In which ways do time perception differ across individuals living with different types of dementia? After deduplication, title and abstract screening, and full-text review, a total of 12 studies were included in this scoping review. Findings generally indicated that people living with dementia perceive time differently than people living without dementia, and that some differences across dementia diagnoses may exist, but the body of literature on time perception in dementia was quite limited. Future research should focus on replicating findings while extending the research to look beyond the dementia versus non-dementia dichotomy as differences across dementia diagnoses may exist. Moreover, if people living with dementia (and, in particular, living with different dementia diagnoses) experience time differently from those experiencing normal aging, we need to begin to address these differences in dementia-friendly initiatives to improve well-being for this population.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".