Effects of speeding up or slowing down animate or inanimate motions on timing.

It has recently been suggested that time perception and motor timing are influenced by the presence of biological movements and animacy in the visual scene. Here, we investigated the interactions among timing, speed and animacy in two experiments. In Experiment 1, observers had to press a button in synchrony with the landing of a falling ball while a dancer or a whirligig moved in the background of the scene. The speed of these two characters was artificially changed across sessions. We found striking differences in the timing of button-press responses as a function of the condition. Responses were delayed considerably with increasing speed of the whirligig. By contrast, the effect of the dancer's speed was weaker and in the opposite direction. In Experiment 2, we assessed the perceived animacy of these characters and found that the dancer was rated as much more animate than the whirligig, irrespective of the character speed. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that event timers are selectively biased as a function of perceived animacy, implicating high-level mechanisms for time modulation. However, response timing interacts with perceived animacy and speed in a complex manner.

Contributions of the human temporoparietal junction and MT/V5+ to the timing of interception revealed by transcranial magnetic stimulation.

To intercept a fast target at destination, hand movements must be centrally triggered ahead of target arrival to compensate for neuromechanical delays. The role of visual-motion cortical areas is unclear. They likely feed downstream parietofrontal networks with signals reflecting target motion, but do they also contribute internal timing signals to trigger the motor response? We disrupted the activity of human temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and middle temporal area (hMT/V5+) by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) while subjects pressed a button to intercept targets accelerated or decelerated in the vertical or horizontal direction. Target speed was randomized, making arrival time unpredictable across trials. We used either repetitive TMS (rTMS) before task execution or double-pulse TMS (dpTMS) during target motion. We found that after rTMS and dpTMS at 100-200 ms from motion onset, but not after dpTMS at 300-400 ms, the button-press responses occurred earlier than in the control, with time shifts independent of target speed. This suggests that activity in TPJ and hMT/V5+ can feed downstream regions not only with visual-motion information, but also with internal timing signals used for interception at destination. Moreover, we found that TMS of hMT/V5+ affected interception of all tested motion types, whereas TMS of TPJ significantly affected only interception of motion coherent with natural gravity. TPJ might specifically gate visual-motion information according to an internal model of the effects of gravity.

How long did it last? You would better ask a human.

In the future, human-like robots will live among people to provide company and help carrying out tasks in cooperation with humans. These interactions require that robots understand not only human actions, but also the way in which we perceive the world. Human perception heavily relies on the time dimension, especially when it comes to processing visual motion. Critically, human time perception for dynamic events is often inaccurate. Robots interacting with humans may want to see the world and tell time the way humans do: if so, they must incorporate human-like fallacy. Observers asked to judge the duration of brief scenes are prone to errors: perceived duration often does not match the physical duration of the event. Several kinds of temporal distortions have been described in the specialized literature. Here we review the topic with a special emphasis on our work dealing with time perception of animate actors versus inanimate actors. This work shows the existence of specialized time bases for different categories of targets. The time base used by the human brain to process visual motion appears to be calibrated against the specific predictions regarding the motion of human figures in case of animate motion, while it can be calibrated against the predictions of motion of passive objects in case of inanimate motion. Human perception of time appears to be strictly linked with the mechanisms used to control movements. Thus, neural time can be entrained by external cues in a similar manner for both perceptual judgments of elapsed time and in motor control tasks. One possible strategy could be to implement in humanoids a unique architecture for dealing with time, which would apply the same specialized mechanisms to both perception and action, similarly to humans. This shared implementation might render the humanoids more acceptable to humans, thus facilitating reciprocal interactions.

Tempo rubato : animacy speeds up time in the brain.

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.