Skip to main content
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
editorial
. 2024 May 29;14:12244. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-62189-7

Malleability and fluidity of time perception

Hirohito M Kondo 1,, Elena Gheorghiu 2, Ana P Pinheiro 3
PMCID: PMC11137112  PMID: 38811624

Abstract

Time perception is inherently subjective and malleable. We experience a wide range of time scales, from less than a second to decades. In addition, our perception of time can be affected by our attentional and emotional states. Previous psychological and neuroimaging studies have used several paradigms and methods to probe factors that influence time perception. Considering these factors facilitates approaches to improve time management and to enhance sensory experiences. This Collection of time perception studies includes reports that focus on stimulus property, physiological state, cross-modal interaction, attention, learning, age, and environment. These findings help to illuminate the complex mechanisms of time perception.

Subject terms: Human behaviour, Perception


Humans have no absolute sense of time. Time perception is fundamentally subjective and depends on one's experiences and circumstances. Moments of excitement and joy can seem dizzyingly faster, whereas moments of boredom and stress can feel interminable1, illustrating how attentional and emotional states affect time perception. Also, time perception has critical effects on many cognitive abilities and motor skills. For instance, we can play the piano with quick movements. Accurate temporal and rhythmic performance are important not only for playing music, but also for multisensory perception, language, and motor planning2,3. In addition, we may vividly recall memories from years ago. We have a broad range of time scales4. These timings appear to be underpinned by different neural mechanisms5. The brain navigates and processes time ranges from subsecond to year, highlighting its remarkable adaptability and complexity.

The more often we pay attention to the passage of time, the longer we perceive time to be6. Our perception of the passage of time may vary as a function of age and education7 or mood state8. This is probably consistent with the contextual-change hypothesis that the perceived duration of an event is affected by the number of contextual changes9. Extending this idea may explain how different age groups perceive time differently. For boys and girls, holiday adventures are hard to come by. Adults have many routine activities and time seems to pass at an accelerated pace. Relative to adults, children may use heuristic methods for duration estimation10. However, it should be noted that feeling the passage of time and estimating duration may employ different mechanisms of time perception11.

A simple explanation for the perceived compression and expansion of time is the event-density hypothesis. This postulates that the number of events occurring during a certain period affects perception of time intervals12, assuming that the “internal clock” counts at a constant rhythm13. Directing attention to salient stimuli or engaging in complex tasks increases internal pulses, i.e., the density of events, resulting in the perception that time is passing quickly6. This hypothesis is consistent with the idea that cellular metabolism and the internal clock are intimately interconnected. An early study argued that as body temperature increases, the internal clock seems to advance faster, leading to the perception of shorter durations14. Cognitive components, such as working memory and attention, were incorporated into the pulse-generating pacemaker and developed into the scalar expectancy model15 and the attentional-gate model16.

Time perception depends not only on endogenous factors, such as attentional, motivational, and physiological levels17,18, but also on exogenous factors, such as speed of motion, stimulus complexity19, salience of visual stimulus features20, and spatial, temporal, social context21 or environment22. Previous studies have frequently employed experimental paradigms such as temporal order or duration judgements to assess time perception of short intervals. In such paradigms, a novel or “oddball” stimulus is perceived as longer in duration than repeated or “standard” stimuli23. The first visual stimulus in a train appears to be perceived as longer than successive stimuli24. However, such a phenomenon does not occur in relation to auditory stimuli. There is a consensus that timing of subsecond intervals is supported by distributed sensory-specific mechanisms25,26. An event-related potential (ERP) study demonstrated that people with normal hearing, but not deaf individuals, show a strong ERP response to visual stimuli in temporal areas during a time-bisection task, whereas the same response is not elicited during a space-bisection task27 (see also a study of developmental viewpoint28). Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) levels in the human visual cortex measured using magnetic resonance spectroscopy appear to correlate with perceived durations of visual intervals, suggesting that the GABAergic system contributes to individual differences in time perception29. However, time perception studies in this Collection have found that learning of temporal interval discrimination transfers between auditory and visual modalities30 and that cross-modal correspondence between auditory pitch and visual elevation selectively affects temporal recalibration31.

There is no single sensory organ responsible for time perception. Different brain regions are involved in temporal processing depending on time scales. Subsecond time intervals are mainly processed in the cerebellum32, whereas temporal processing in the range of seconds and minutes is supported by the prefrontal cortex and striatum33,34. In addition, time perception is impaired in disorders of the precuneus/posterior cingulate gyrus35 and supramarginal gyrus36. In particular, the precuneus may contribute to our sense of “presentness”, providing the “now” in the passage of time37,38.

The advent of digital technology has had an unprecedented impact on time perception. Ubiquitous access to the Internet facilitates instantaneous information retrieval and synchronous communication. A consequence of this persistent connectivity is the potential for information overload, such that the sense of time tends to become ambiguous. The widespread prevalence of social media notifications may contribute to the perceived acceleration of time. However, through flow and meditation states, alternative perceptions of time can be experienced. Specifically, a flow experience is a symbolic phenomenon of time distortion, in which one forgets the passage of time by immersing oneself in a certain activity. People in a flow state often report this state as being “in the zone”39. Although there are anecdotal reports of flow experiences by athletes, few studies have captured quantitative aspects of flow states40. However, some studies have identified flow states in terms of attentional fluctuations41,42. Using such methods, it may be possible to overcome methodological difficulties and to measure altered time perception.

Articles in this Collection show that the interplay of stimulus property, physiological state, attention, age, and environment fundamentally shapes individual temporal experiences. A deep understanding of these factors is undoubtedly crucial to the ongoing field of time perception research.

Author contributions

HMK: writing–original draft, writing–review and editing; EG: writing–review and editing; APP: writing–review and editing. All authors gave final approval for publication.

Funding

HMK was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI grants (nos. 20H01789 and 22K18659).

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.James W. The Principles of Psychology. Henry Holt and Company; 1890. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kaya E, Henry MJ. Reliable estimation of internal oscillator properties from a novel, fast-paced tapping paradigm. Sci. Rep. 2022;12:20466. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-24453-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Li L, Yotsumoto Y, Hayashi MJ. Temporal perceptual learning distinguishes between empty and filled intervals. Sci. Rep. 2022;12:9824. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13814-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Eagleman DM. Human time perception and its illusions. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2008;18:131–136. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2008.06.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wittmann M, Paulus MP. Decision making, impulsivity and time perception. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2008;12:7–12. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Martinelli N, Droit-Volet S. What factors underlie our experience of the passage of time? Theoretical consequences. Psychol. Res. 2022;86:522–530. doi: 10.1007/s00426-021-01486-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wittmann M, Lehnhoff S. Age effects in perception of time. Psychol. Rep. 2005;97:921–935. doi: 10.2466/pr0.97.3.921-935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Buzi G, Eustache F, D'Argembeau A, Hinault T. The role of depressive symptoms in the interplay between aging and temporal processing. Sci. Rep. 2023;13:11375. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-38500-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Block RA, Reed MA. Remembered duration: Evidence for a contextual-change hypothesis. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. 1978;4:656–665. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.656. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Stojić S, Topić V, Nadasdy Z. Children and adults rely on different heuristics for estimation of durations. Sci. Rep. 2023;13:1077. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-27419-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lamprou-Kokolaki M, Nédélec Y, Lhuillier S, van Wassenhove V. Distinctive features of experiential time: Duration, speed and event density. Conscious. Cogn. 2024;118:103635. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2024.103635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Poynter, D. In [Adavances in Psychology] Time and Human Cognition: A Life-Span Perspective Vol. 59 (eds Levin, I. & Zakay, D.) Ch. 8, 305–331 (Elsevier, 1989).
  • 13.Treisman M. Temporal discrimination and the indifference interval. Implications for a model of the "internal clock". Psychol. Monogr. 1963;77:1–31. doi: 10.1037/h0093864. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hoagland H. The physiological control of judgments of duration: Evidence for a chemical clock. J. Gen. Psychol. 1933;9:267–287. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1933.9920937. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gibbon J, Church RM, Meck WH. Scalar timing in memory. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1984;423:52–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1984.tb23417.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zakay D, Block RA. Temporal cognition. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 1997;6:12–16. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep11512604. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sabat M, Haładus B, Klincewicz M, Nalepa GJ. Cognitive load, fatigue and aversive simulator symptoms but not manipulated zeitgebers affect duration perception in virtual reality. Sci. Rep. 2022;12:15689. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-18520-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Polgári P, Jovanovic L, van Wassenhove V, Giersch A. The processing of subthreshold visual temporal order is transitory and motivation-dependent. Sci. Rep. 2023;13:7699. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-34392-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kovarski K, et al. Movie editing influences spectators' time perception. Sci. Rep. 2022;12:20084. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-23992-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ziat M, Saoud W, Prychitko S, Servos P, Grondin S. Malleability of time through progress bars and throbbers. Sci. Rep. 2022;12:10400. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-14649-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Boned J, López-Moliner J. Duration judgments are mediated by the similarity with the temporal context. Sci. Rep. 2022;12:22575. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-27168-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Jording M, Vogel DHV, Viswanathan S, Vogeley K. Dissociating passage and duration of time experiences through the intensity of ongoing visual change. Sci. Rep. 2022;12:8226. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-12063-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Eagleman DM, Pariyadath V. Is subjective duration a signature of coding efficiency? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2009;364:1841–1851. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rose D, Summers J. Duration illusions in a train of visual stimuli. Perception. 1995;24:1177–1187. doi: 10.1068/p241177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Grondin S. Timing and time perception: A review of recent behavioral and neuroscience findings and theoretical directions. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 2010;72:561–582. doi: 10.3758/app.72.3.561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mauk MD, Buonomano DV. The neural basis of temporal processing. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2004;27:307–340. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gori M, Amadeo MB, Pavani F, Valzolgher C, Campus C. Temporal visual representation elicits early auditory-like responses in hearing but not in deaf individuals. Sci. Rep. 2022;12:19036. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-22224-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Polver S, Háden GP, Bulf H, Winkler I, Tóth B. Early maturation of sound duration processing in the infant's brain. Sci. Rep. 2023;13:10287. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-36794-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Terhune DB, Russo S, Near J, Stagg CJ, Kadosh RC. GABA predicts time perception. J. Neurosci. 2014;34:4364–4370. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.3972-13.2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Xiong YZ, Guan SC, Yu C. A supramodal and conceptual representation of subsecond time revealed with perceptual learning of temporal interval discrimination. Sci. Rep. 2022;12:10668. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-14698-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Uno K, Yokosawa K. Cross-modal correspondence between auditory pitch and visual elevation modulates audiovisual temporal recalibration. Sci. Rep. 2022;12:21308. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-25614-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Koch G, Oliveri M, Caltagirone C. Neural networks engaged in milliseconds and seconds time processing: Evidence from transcranial magnetic stimulation and patients with cortical or subcortical dysfunction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2009;364:1907–1918. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lalonde R, Hannequin D. The neurobiological basis of time estimation and temporal order. Rev. Neurosci. 1999;10:151–173. doi: 10.1515/revneuro.1999.10.2.151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Allman MJ, Meck WH. Pathophysiological distortions in time perception and timed performance. Brain. 2012;135:656–677. doi: 10.1093/brain/awr210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Critchley M. The Parietal Lobes. Hafner Press; 1953. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Pacella V, et al. Temporal judgments of actions following unilateral brain damage. Sci. Rep. 2022;12:21668. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-26070-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Peer M, Salomon R, Goldberg I, Blanke O, Arzy S. Brain system for mental orientation in space, time, and person. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2015;112:11072–11077. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1504242112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tang L, et al. Neural correlates of temporal presentness in the precuneus: A cross-linguistic fMRI study based on speech stimuli. Cereb. Cortex. 2021;31:1538–1552. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhaa307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. HarperCollins; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hancock PA, et al. A meta-analysis of flow effects and the perception of time. Acta Psychol. 2019;198:102836. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.04.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Esterman M, Noonan SK, Rosenberg M, Degutis J. In the zone or zoning out? Tracking behavioral and neural fluctuations during sustained attention. Cereb. Cortex. 2013;23:2712–2723. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhs261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Terashima H, Kihara K, Kawahara JI, Kondo HM. Common principles underlie the fluctuation of auditory and visual sustained attention. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2021;74:705–715. doi: 10.1177/1747021820972255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES