Tempo Rubato: Animacy Speeds Up Time in the Brain

Mauro Carrozzo, Alessandro Moscatelli, Francesco Lacquaniti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: How do we estimate time when watching an action? The idea that events are timed by a centralized clock has recently been called into question in favour of distributed, specialized mechanisms. Here we provide evidence for a critical specialization: animate and inanimate events are separately timed by humans. Methodology/Principal Findings: In different experiments, observers were asked to intercept a moving target or to discriminate the duration of a stationary flash while viewing different scenes. Time estimates were systematically shorter in the sessions involving human characters moving in the scene than in those involving inanimate moving characters. Remarkably, the animate/inanimate context also affected randomly intermingled trials which always depicted the same still character. Conclusions/Significance: The existence of distinct time bases for animate and inanimate events might be related to the partial segregation of the neural networks processing these two categories of objects, and could enhance our ability to predict critically timed actions.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere15638
JournalPLoS One
Volume5
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

Clocks
Brain
Neural networks
brain
Processing
neural networks
Experiments
duration
methodology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Tempo Rubato : Animacy Speeds Up Time in the Brain. / Carrozzo, Mauro; Moscatelli, Alessandro; Lacquaniti, Francesco.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 5, No. 12, e15638, 2010.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Carrozzo, Mauro ; Moscatelli, Alessandro ; Lacquaniti, Francesco. / Tempo Rubato : Animacy Speeds Up Time in the Brain. In: PLoS One. 2010 ; Vol. 5, No. 12.
@article{ee40392fc8ce45a8b31e18de14d55036,
title = "Tempo Rubato: Animacy Speeds Up Time in the Brain",
abstract = "Background: How do we estimate time when watching an action? The idea that events are timed by a centralized clock has recently been called into question in favour of distributed, specialized mechanisms. Here we provide evidence for a critical specialization: animate and inanimate events are separately timed by humans. Methodology/Principal Findings: In different experiments, observers were asked to intercept a moving target or to discriminate the duration of a stationary flash while viewing different scenes. Time estimates were systematically shorter in the sessions involving human characters moving in the scene than in those involving inanimate moving characters. Remarkably, the animate/inanimate context also affected randomly intermingled trials which always depicted the same still character. Conclusions/Significance: The existence of distinct time bases for animate and inanimate events might be related to the partial segregation of the neural networks processing these two categories of objects, and could enhance our ability to predict critically timed actions.",
author = "Mauro Carrozzo and Alessandro Moscatelli and Francesco Lacquaniti",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0015638",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tempo Rubato

T2 - Animacy Speeds Up Time in the Brain

AU - Carrozzo, Mauro

AU - Moscatelli, Alessandro

AU - Lacquaniti, Francesco

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Background: How do we estimate time when watching an action? The idea that events are timed by a centralized clock has recently been called into question in favour of distributed, specialized mechanisms. Here we provide evidence for a critical specialization: animate and inanimate events are separately timed by humans. Methodology/Principal Findings: In different experiments, observers were asked to intercept a moving target or to discriminate the duration of a stationary flash while viewing different scenes. Time estimates were systematically shorter in the sessions involving human characters moving in the scene than in those involving inanimate moving characters. Remarkably, the animate/inanimate context also affected randomly intermingled trials which always depicted the same still character. Conclusions/Significance: The existence of distinct time bases for animate and inanimate events might be related to the partial segregation of the neural networks processing these two categories of objects, and could enhance our ability to predict critically timed actions.

AB - Background: How do we estimate time when watching an action? The idea that events are timed by a centralized clock has recently been called into question in favour of distributed, specialized mechanisms. Here we provide evidence for a critical specialization: animate and inanimate events are separately timed by humans. Methodology/Principal Findings: In different experiments, observers were asked to intercept a moving target or to discriminate the duration of a stationary flash while viewing different scenes. Time estimates were systematically shorter in the sessions involving human characters moving in the scene than in those involving inanimate moving characters. Remarkably, the animate/inanimate context also affected randomly intermingled trials which always depicted the same still character. Conclusions/Significance: The existence of distinct time bases for animate and inanimate events might be related to the partial segregation of the neural networks processing these two categories of objects, and could enhance our ability to predict critically timed actions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78650813533&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78650813533&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0015638

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0015638

M3 - Article

C2 - 21206749

AN - SCOPUS:78650813533

VL - 5

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 12

M1 - e15638

ER -