↓ Skip to main content

Further Evidence That the Effects of Repetition on Subjective Time Depend on Repetition Probability

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Further Evidence That the Effects of Repetition on Subjective Time Depend on Repetition Probability
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01915
Pubmed ID
Authors

William J. Skylark, Ana I. Gheorghiu

Abstract

Repeated stimuli typically have shorter apparent duration than novel stimuli. Most explanations for this effect have attributed it to the repeated stimuli being more expected or predictable than the novel items, but an emerging body of work suggests that repetition and expectation exert distinct effects on time perception. The present experiment replicated a recent study in which the probability of repetition was varied between blocks of trials. As in the previous work, the repetition effect was smaller when repeats were common (and therefore more expected) than when they were rare. These results add to growing evidence that, contrary to traditional accounts, expectation increases apparent duration whereas repetition compresses subjective time, perhaps via a low-level process like adaptation. These opposing processes can be seen as instances of a more general "processing principle," according to which subjective time is a function of the perceptual strength of the stimulus representation, and therefore depends on a confluence of "bottom-up" and "top-down" variables.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 36%
Neuroscience 4 16%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 24 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,364,355
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,618
of 30,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,867
of 329,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#140
of 607 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,246 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 done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 329,153 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 607 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.