Effort and boredom shape our experience of time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Situations change over time, and so does our experience of them. For example, a task may initially feel engaging but can, over time, become monotonous and boring. Similarly, as processing demands increase or one's momentary capabilities decline, the same task can feel more or less effortful. The dynamics of these task-induced sensations matter because boredom and perceived effort shape behavior by driving optimization of resource utilization. Time is among the most fundamental resources to which people tend to be acutely sensitive across contexts. Here, we propose that the sensations of boredom and effort influence how the passing of time is experienced. Specifically, both states are linked to changes in interoception-the perception of internal bodily signals-which is known to play a key role in time perception. This proposal offers a framework for understanding how fundamental regulatory sensations, such as boredom and effort, shape temporal experience through interoceptive mechanisms. We highlight the insular cortex as a potential hub mediating the effects of interoceptive signals on time perception, integrating feelings of boredom and effort, and their influence on the experience 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".