Here is the TRF’s July newsletter!
Here is the TRF’s June newsletter!
Here is the TRF’s May 2020 newsletter!
Here is the TRF’s April 2020 newsletter!
We wish everyone to stay healthy in these difficult times. Our TRF’s March 2020 newsletter is nevertheless available and we will continue to relay the news related to time and timing perception to the best of our ability. Stay safe and take care!
Here is the TRF’s February 2020 newsletter!
After a very successful TRF1 in 2017, this year saw the second bi-annual Timing Research Forum held from the 15-17th of October, 2019 in Queretaro, Mexico. The conference largely followed the format of its predecessor, with the extremely exciting addition of a Moonshot session and keynotes from Mehrdad Jazayeri, Albert Tsao and Kia Nobre.
It would be difficult to comment on all the new ideas and findings, with so many exciting and inspiring talks/posters in one place, but some of the musings I took away were related to how we still have a long (and adventurous) road ahead of us in terms of defining what we truly mean when we speak of the specifics of timing and time perception. Specifically, several speakers proposed the idea of rethinking relative features of time such as what regularity truly means for the brain, and whether previously demonstrated functional networks account for all presentations of time as has been suggested (for example, beats and intervals), or rather whether different networks account for different aspects of time. The importance of rhythmic expectation via improved performance in behavioural measures were also touched upon, but again, extrapolating these behavioural effects to occur as a result of temporal expectation is a perilous stance that still requires further exploration (and may actually be more challenging than we initially anticipate). With every meeting dedicated to exploring time perception, it becomes increasingly obvious that we don’t all mean the same thing when we speak of time. Investigating the perception of ‘rhythms’ or ‘beat’ is distinctly different to the perception of ‘intervals’, and even that is different to the processing of ‘durations’. Perhaps, however, these differences are what make the study of time endlessly exciting and compelling – that there truly is so much more we are yet to discover (and eventually piece together).
The Moonshot session was a novel and particularly exciting addition at this years meeting. The basic premise for the discussion was this –
“For the next 5 years, all techniques, methods, and workforce are available to solve the question you think is essential to understand time in the brain. Which question would that be, and why?”.
Speakers proposed several really thought-provoking and progressive advances (the session was fully livestreamed and if you didn’t get a chance to tune in, you can still catch up at https://www.pscp.tv/w/1djxXRwNmYyGZ). Some of the suggestions included a focus on the ontology of timing and a particular need to develop a comprehensive taxonomy of time, as several accounts of interval timing actually describe pattern timing. Another suggestion was the immediate need to explore if distinct neurochemical systems mediate distinct aspects of timing and more social approaches to this question, for example, why synchronous movements with others increases social affiliation (even as early as infancy), and in a similar vein, the comparison that unlike humans, other primates (monkeys) do not spontaneously perform periodic temporal prediction, highlighting that predictive motor entrainment is intrinsically rewarding to humans (..and why exactly to species differ)?.
While the Moonshot allowed for many exciting ideas to be brought to the forefront, I was especially excited by Molly Henry’s radical approach to the perusal of needing to delimit the now, and what exactly this means. Molly described reports on an ‘expanded now’ from individuals on LSD and other hallucinogens, and proposed that if we truly were to aim for the moon, considering the use of such stimulants to explore the extent of the ‘now’ might actually be more fruitful and eye-opening (excuse the pun!) than we realise. Whilst this leaves much to think about (and in some cases, reconsider), there is something to be said for the feeling of each of us working together to piece this puzzle in our own creative ways.
In conclusion, it is no understatement to say TRF2 was a resounding success – presenting novel insights, but also reaffirming the need to continue pushing our own assumptions of approaching the enigma of timing creatively. Building on the foundations of its predecessor, TRF2 has paved the way for more exciting work to be presented at TRF3 in Groningen (The Netherlands). Thanks again to all the organisers and attendees. See you in 2021!
– Aysha Motala is a postdoctoral fellow at the Brain and Mind Institute (Western University, Canada) working on cross-modal timing and neuroimaging of speech and rhythm processing
We are excited to announce that Dr. Martin Wiener will be joining TRF’s newly instituted ‘Board of Directors’ as our first Director.
Dr. Martin Wiener’s lab is engaged in understanding the neural mechanisms and computations underlying time, space, and action. His work employs numerous techniques, including fMRI, EEG, TMS and tES, as well as combinations of these. His work additionally explores how the neural mechanisms for time adapt to different experimental contexts.
Martin is an active member of the timing research community and we are thrilled to have him on board and help shape TRF’s mission and support its 700+ members community. Martin will be at the TRF2 Conference in Mexico in case anyone wants to discuss anything related to TRF.
Hosted by Fuat Balcı & Argiro Vatakis
Decades-long research in interval timing has primarily focused on the psychophysical properties of this fundamental function typically in consideration of veridical timing behavior. Along the similar vein, generative models of interval timing mostly focus on the processing dynamics of the internal stop-watch in its default mode. Both of these approaches have largely overlooked the malleability of perceived time by exogenous factors such as stimulus intensity and endogenous factors such as physiological arousal. These very relations could actually help researchers better understand the representational constitution of subjective time and the processing dynamics of the internal stop-watch. This special issue aims to cover a wide range of empirical and theoretical work on the effects of different factors (e.g., stimulus features, physiological states, emotional states, drugs) on timing and time perception in humans and other animals.
1. Full paper submission by November 1st, 2019.
Instructions for submission: The submission website is located at: http://www.editorialmanager.com/timebrill/. To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for inclusion into the special issue it is important to select “Special Issue: Temporal Illusions” when you reach the “Article Type” step in the submission process. More details on format that must be followed in preparing your manuscripts see here
3. Standard peer review/revision process will be followed.
4. Final decisions are expected by May 15th, 2020.