Cognitive science is emerging as one of the engaging areas of research in the domain of neurosciences, human behavior and chronobiology. Mechanisms of short-term time perception continue to baffle scientists in these disciplines. The wide arrays of methodologies used to ascertain human abilities to estimate short-time intervals give rise to diverse interpretation of research outputs. The frequently used terminologies, viz., over- or under-estimation/production or reproduction seem to be the profound cause for misinterpretation and misconception of results. In this article we elucidate research carried out on short-interval time estimation and resolve conceptual misapprehensions on its underlying mechanisms.
%0 Journal Article
%1 citeulike:10381990
%A Pande, Babita
%A Pati, Atanu K.
%D 2010
%I Taylor & Francis
%J Biological Rhythm Research
%K chronobiology, timing
%N 5
%P 379--390
%R 10.1080/09291010903299111
%T Overestimation/underestimation of time: concept confusion hoodwink conclusion
%U http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09291010903299111
%V 41
%X Cognitive science is emerging as one of the engaging areas of research in the domain of neurosciences, human behavior and chronobiology. Mechanisms of short-term time perception continue to baffle scientists in these disciplines. The wide arrays of methodologies used to ascertain human abilities to estimate short-time intervals give rise to diverse interpretation of research outputs. The frequently used terminologies, viz., over- or under-estimation/production or reproduction seem to be the profound cause for misinterpretation and misconception of results. In this article we elucidate research carried out on short-interval time estimation and resolve conceptual misapprehensions on its underlying mechanisms.
@article{citeulike:10381990,
abstract = {{Cognitive science is emerging as one of the engaging areas of research in the domain of neurosciences, human behavior and chronobiology. Mechanisms of short-term time perception continue to baffle scientists in these disciplines. The wide arrays of methodologies used to ascertain human abilities to estimate short-time intervals give rise to diverse interpretation of research outputs. The frequently used terminologies, viz., over- or under-estimation/production or reproduction seem to be the profound cause for misinterpretation and misconception of results. In this article we elucidate research carried out on short-interval time estimation and resolve conceptual misapprehensions on its underlying mechanisms.}},
added-at = {2012-02-24T13:40:34.000+0100},
author = {Pande, Babita and Pati, Atanu K.},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2e520faee4c934cbfc0b30ed370527198/jakspa},
citeulike-article-id = {10381990},
citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09291010903299111},
citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09291010903299111},
day = 4,
doi = {10.1080/09291010903299111},
interhash = {5f16038686f4e24d1e2319d6db40dc06},
intrahash = {e520faee4c934cbfc0b30ed370527198},
journal = {Biological Rhythm Research},
keywords = {chronobiology, timing},
month = jan,
number = 5,
pages = {379--390},
posted-at = {2012-02-24 08:05:01},
priority = {0},
publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
timestamp = {2012-02-24T13:40:37.000+0100},
title = {{Overestimation/underestimation of time: concept confusion hoodwink conclusion}},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09291010903299111},
volume = 41,
year = 2010
}