Table 5.

Prospective Comparison Tasks in ASC

		Sample ASC	NT	Task	Main conclusions	Commentaries
Allman et al. [2011]	n	13	12	Temporal bisection	Bisection point in ASC shorter than NT in two anchors (1–4 and 2–8 sec) No differences in WR in anchor 1–4 sec Higher WR in ASC in anchor 2–8 sec	Small sample Weak characterization of the control group
	Age	10.3	10.3
	IQ	92.31	109.8
Gil et al. [2012]	n	12	12	Temporal bisection	No differences in BP, DL or WR Good adjustment to scalar timing properties in both groups	Small sample Changes in the research paradigms were introduced to maintain participants' attention; however, this effect was not tested
	Age	13	13.21
	IQ	94.37	101.45
Brodeur et al. [2014]	n	15	15	Temporal Generalization	No group main effect, but group by duration main effect was reached	Small sample No computer modeling or signal detection theory applied in either task
	Age	10.74 (3.93)	6.46 (0.93)
		CA 7.3 MA	CA 6.46 MA
	n	15	15	Temporal bisection	Higher DL and BP in ASC No group main effect, but group by duration main effect was reached	Small sample No statistical comparisons of DL, BP, or WR
	Age	10.16 (3.93)	6.61 (0.78)
	IQ	CA 6.19 MA	6.22 MA
Falter, Elliott, and Bailey [2012]	n	18	19	Temporal generalization	Less temporal sensitivity in ASC Higher consistency in the responses between different time intervals	Small sample
	Age	25.3	26.1
	IQ	112	113
Jones et al. [2017]	n	20	26	Temporal bisection	No differences between groups in WR or BP	No computer modeling performed or signal detection theory
	Age	45.4	44
	IQ	114.6	108.1