↓ Skip to main content

Relative Time Compression for Slow-Motion Stimuli through Rapid Recalibration

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
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
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Relative Time Compression for Slow-Motion Stimuli through Rapid Recalibration
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01195
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saya Kashiwakura, Isamu Motoyoshi

Abstract

A number of psychophysical studies have shown that moving stimuli appear to last longer than static stimuli. Here, we report that the perceived duration for slow moving stimuli can be shorter than for static stimuli under specific circumstances. Observers were tested using natural movies presented at various speeds (0.0× = static, 0.25× = slow, or 1.9× = fast, relative to original speed) and indicated whether test duration was perceived as longer or shorter than comparison movies presented at their original speed. While fast movies were perceived as longer than slow and static movies (in accordance with previous studies), we found that slow movies were perceived as shorter (i.e., time compressed) compared to static images. Similar results were obtained for artificial stimuli consisting of drifting gratings. However, time compression for slow stimuli disappeared if comparison stimuli were replaced by a white static disk that removed repetitive exposures to moving stimuli. Results suggest that duration estimation is modulated by contextual effects induced by the specific diet - or distribution - of prior visual stimuli to which observers are exposed. A simple model, which includes a rapid recalibration of human time estimation via adaptation to preceding stimuli, succeeds in reproducing our experimental data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 28%
Student > Master 4 22%
Student > Bachelor 3 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 67%
Neuroscience 4 22%
Sports and Recreations 1 6%
Unknown 1 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 June 2019.
All research outputs
#16,031,201
of 25,801,916 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,187
of 34,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,491
of 308,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#341
of 565 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,801,916 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 308,423 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 565 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.