↓ Skip to main content

Perceiving Time Differences When You Should Not: Applying the El Greco Fallacy to Hypnotic Time Distortions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Perceiving Time Differences When You Should Not: Applying the El Greco Fallacy to Hypnotic Time Distortions
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01309
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean-Rémy Martin, Jérôme Sackur, Hernan Anlló, Peter Naish, Zoltan Dienes

Abstract

The way we experience and estimate time - subjective time - does not systematically correspond to objective time (the physical duration of an event). Many factors can influence subjective time and lead to mental dilation or compression of objective time. The emotional valence of stimuli or the levels of attention or expectancy are known to modulate subjective time even though objective time is constant. Hypnosis too is known to alter people's perception of time. However, it is not known whether hypnotic time distortions are intrinsic perceptual effects, based for example on the changing rate of an internal clock, or rather the result of a response to demand characteristics. Here we distinguished the theories using the logic of the El Greco fallacy. When participants initially had to compare the duration of two successive events -with the same duration - while in "trance," they responded that the second event was on average longer than the first event. As both events were estimated in "trance," if hypnosis had impacted on an internal clock, they should have been affected to the same extent. Conversely, when only the first event was in "trance," there was no difference in perceived duration. The findings conform to an El Greco fallacy effect and challenge theories of hypnotic time distortion arguing that "trance" itself changes subjective time.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 26%
Student > Master 4 21%
Other 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 37%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Neuroscience 2 11%
Decision Sciences 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 September 2020.
All research outputs
#13,241,793
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,551
of 29,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,659
of 336,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#234
of 401 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,888 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 401 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.