Analysis of Genetic and Non-Genetic Factors Influencing Timing and Time Perception

Abstract

Performance on different psychophysical tasks measuring the sense of time indicates a large amount of individual variation in the accuracy and precision of timing in the hundredths of milliseconds-to-minutes range. Quantifying factors with an influence on timing is essential to isolating a biological (genetic) contribution to the perception and estimation of time. In the largest timing study to date, 647 participants completed a duration-discrimination task in the sub-second range and a time-production task in the supra-second range. We confirm the stability of a participant’s time sense across multiple sessions and substantiate a modest sex difference on time production. Moreover, we demonstrate a strong correlation between performance on a standardized cognitive battery and performance in both duration-discrimination and time-production tasks; we further show that performance is uncorrelated with age after controlling for general intelligence. Additionally, we find an effect of ethnicity on time sense, with African Americans and possibly Hispanics in our cohort differing in accuracy and precision from other ethnic groups. Finally, a preliminary genome-wide association and exome chip study was performed on 148 of the participants, ruling out the possibility for a single common variant or groups of low-frequency coding variants within a single gene to explain more than ~18% of the variation in the sense of time.

A single mechanism account of duration and rate processing via the pacemaker–accumulator and beat frequency models

“…To determine whether our rate and duration timing mechanisms are integrated or not we will have to acquire much more data about the pattern of co-variation of rate and duration judgements and focus on more sophisticated models of temporal processing and multisensory integration [5], [30], [37]–[39]. But without opening up the space of possible timing models to include integrated mechanisms for rate and duration we risk casting our theoretical and experimental time perception net too narrowly in terms of identifying relevant biological and non-biological factors [40]. Consequently, we advocate a broader and more integrative approach in order to make progress on answering questions fundamental to knowing how it is that we perceive time.…”

Clock Speed as a Window into Dopaminergic Control of Emotion and Time Perception

“…Furthermore, many commonly prescribed drugs powerfully modulate dopaminergic signaling. Thus, understanding the precise mechanism of dopaminergic control of emotion and clock speed is of great clinical relevance, as it may help provide insight into symptoms of Parkinson's disease, schizophrenia, and ADHD, as well as help develop and tune current and novel therapies and genetic tests for these and other human diseases including drug abuse, anxiety, and depression (e.g., Bartholomew et al, 2015;Howland, 2012;Lake, 2016;Lake et al, in press;Meck, 2005;Schapira et al, 2006;Thönes & Oberfeld, 2015;Tomasi et al, 2015;Wittmann et al, 2007).…”

Cognitive Aging and Time Perception: Roles of Bayesian Optimization and Degeneracy

“…Our ability to time intervals in the milliseconds-to-minutes and extending into the hours-to-days range of circadian timing (Lewis and Miall, 2009 ) relies largely on different neural systems (Hinton and Meck, 1997b ; Buhusi and Meck, 2005 ; Buonomano, 2007 ; Agostino et al, 2011 ; Hass and Durstewitz, 2016 ). Age differences in the temporal window of integration and performance on various timing tasks in the milliseconds-to-minutes range are often quite subtle or nonexistent (e.g., Rammsayer et al, 1993 ; Horváth et al, 2007 ), and in many cases almost completely accounted for by age differences in other cognitive functions such as attention and working memory (Krampe et al, 2002 ; Wittmann and Lehnhoff, 2005 ; Desai, 2007 ; Ulbrich et al, 2007 ; Bartholomew et al, 2015 ) and/or in circadian rhythms (Meck, 1991 ; Lustig and Meck, 2001 ; MacDonald et al, 2007 ; Halberg et al, 2008 ; Anderson et al, 2014 ; Golombek et al, 2014 ). The age differences that do exist have traditionally been explained using an information-processing framework, typically with an attentional gate and/or switch that allows pulses that mark the passage of time to accumulate and be passed to working memory, where they are compared with standard values drawn from reference memory (Meck, 1984 ; Zakay and Block, 1997 ; Vanneste and Pouthas, 1999 ; Vanneste et al, 2001 ; Lustig, 2003 ; Allman et al, 2014b ).…”

“…In a seeming paradox, however, there is little evidence that the accuracy and precision of magnitude estimations decline with age on more difficult or “cognitively based” duration discrimination or production tasks once age differences in general intelligence/cognitive function (attention, working memory, resource-sharing, and processing speed) are taken into account (e.g., Salthouse, 1996 ; Wearden et al, 1997 ; Greenwood and Parasuraman, 2003 ; Baudouin et al, 2004 ; Wearden, 2005 ; Hancock and Rausch, 2010 ; Lambrechts et al, 2013 ; Bartholomew et al, 2015 ). For example, in the largest timing study to date, evaluating 647 participants, Bartholomew et al ( 2015 ) found that both discrimination and production were strongly correlated with scores on a general cognitive battery; more importantly, after controlling for cognitive scores, timing performance was unrelated to age. However, a potential caveat is that the age range of participants was limited to 18–67 years, precluding the observation of potential aging effects on timing accuracy and precision that may only become evident or independent of cognitive processes sometime after approximately 75 years of age (c.f., Turgeon and Wing, 2012 ).…”