2015
DOI: 10.1590/1982-43272561201513
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Visual perception is adapted toward a better understanding of our own movements than those of non-conspecifics. The present study determined whether time perception is affected by pictures of different species by considering the evolutionary scale. Static (“S”) and implied movement (“M”) images of a dog, cheetah, chimpanzee, and man were presented to undergraduate students. S and M images of the same species were presented in random order or one after the other (S-M or M-S) for two groups of participants. Move… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We speculate that three key points may shed some light on the source of these inconsistencies. First, some evidence support that the order of stimulus presentation may modulate participants’ timing performance (e.g., Nather & Bueno, 2011; Nather et al., 2015). Thus, contradicting results could be due to presentation order effects, which in our case were controlled for by proper stimulus randomization.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We speculate that three key points may shed some light on the source of these inconsistencies. First, some evidence support that the order of stimulus presentation may modulate participants’ timing performance (e.g., Nather & Bueno, 2011; Nather et al., 2015). Thus, contradicting results could be due to presentation order effects, which in our case were controlled for by proper stimulus randomization.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%