“…This finding cannot be accounted for by an arousal modulation and was, thus, interpreted based on the “change model” (e.g., Poynter, 1989), where body positions implying motion of higher as compared to lower intensity were considered as stimuli that involved more changes/events resulting in an interval overestimation. Further efforts to clarify such inconsistencies showed that the: intervals presented (e.g., Nather & Bueno, 2012b, examined intervals of 9, 18, 27, and 45 s and found an overestimation for stimuli of higher intensity in implied motion only for the 27 s), task implemented (e.g., eye-tracking along with force-platform in a reproduction task; Nather, Bueno, & Bigand, 2009, 2013; Nather et al., 2010), and type of stimuli utilized (e.g., cubist-abstract paintings, optical art, animals vs. human figures; Nather, Anelli, Ennes, & Bueno, 2015; Nather, Fernandes, & Bueno, 2012, 2014; Nather, Mecca, & Bueno, 2013), could modulate time estimation of implied motion. Overall, this line of research does not allow for any integrative conclusions on the role of implied motion on timing, as results are often contradictory.…”