Time perception in bipolar disorder: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Time distortions characterise severe mental disorders, exhibiting different clinical and neurobiological manifestations. This systematic review aims to explore the existing literature encompassing experimental studies on time perception in patients with bipolar disorder (BD), considering psychopathological and cognitive correlates. METHODS: Studies using an experimental paradigm to objectively measure the capacity to judge time have been searched for. Selected studies have been described based on whether i) explicit or implicit time perception was investigated, ii) the temporal intervals involved were sub-second or supra-second, and iii) a perceptual or motor timing paradigm was used. RESULTS: Only 11 met the criteria for inclusion in the review. The available literature shows that the performance of BD patients mostly aligns with controls within sub-second timeframes (six articles), while a different pattern emerges within supra-second intervals based on the clinical phase of the disease (seven articles). Specifically, for longer temporal spans, BD patients tend to overestimate the duration during manic states and underestimate it during depressive states. Notably, no studies have directly investigated the neurobiological mechanisms associated with time perception. CONCLUSION: This review indicates that BD patients exhibit time perception similar to controls within sub-second intervals, but tend to overestimate time and underestimate it based on the clinical phase within supra-second intervals. Expanding the understanding of time perception in BD, particularly in relation to clinical phases and cognitive function, is of great importance. Such insights could deepen our understanding of the disorder, refine diagnostic processes, and guide the development of innovative therapeutic interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".