↓ Skip to main content

Dissociating Explicit and Implicit Timing in Parkinson’s Disease Patients: Evidence from Bisection and Foreperiod Tasks

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Dissociating Explicit and Implicit Timing in Parkinson’s Disease Patients: Evidence from Bisection and Foreperiod Tasks
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanna Mioni, Mariagrazia Capizzi, Antonino Vallesi, Ángel Correa, Raffaella Di Giacopo, Franca Stablum

Abstract

A consistent body of literature reported that Parkinson's disease (PD) is marked by severe deficits in temporal processing. However, the exact nature of timing problems in PD patients is still elusive. In particular, what remains unclear is whether the temporal dysfunction observed in PD patients regards explicit and/or implicit timing. Explicit timing tasks require participants to attend to the duration of the stimulus, whereas in implicit timing tasks no explicit instruction to process time is received but time still affects performance. In the present study, we investigated temporal ability in PD by comparing 20 PD participants and 20 control participants in both explicit and implicit timing tasks. Specifically, we used a time bisection task to investigate explicit timing and a foreperiod task for implicit timing. Moreover, this is the first study investigating sequential effects in PD participants. Results showed preserved temporal ability in PD participants in the implicit timing task only (i.e., normal foreperiod and sequential effects). By contrast, PD participants failed in the explicit timing task as they displayed shorter perceived durations and higher variability compared to controls. Overall, the dissociation reported here supports the idea that timing can be differentiated according to whether it is explicitly or implicitly processed, and that PD participants are selectively impaired in the explicit processing of time.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 28 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 14 19%
Psychology 13 18%
Computer Science 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 33 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 February 2018.
All research outputs
#17,926,658
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,733
of 7,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#307,867
of 437,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#125
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,192 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 437,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.