[P2] Poster: Day 2

[P2-16] Temporal Binding Across Timing Domains: Behavioural Evidence and a Protocol for Causal Manipulation via Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

*Gustavo Brito de Azevedo¹, André Mascioli Cravo² (1. Graduate Program in Neuroscience and Cognition, Federal University of ABC (UFABC) (Brazil), 2. Center for Mathematics, Computing and Cognition, Federal University of ABC (UFABC) (Brazil))

Keywords:

temporal binding,time perception,causality,tDCS

Temporal binding - the perceived shortening of time between a cause and its effect - is typically assessed using tasks that tap into different timing processes: event timing (e.g., Libet Clock, Response Mapping) and interval timing (e.g., Temporal Estimation, Reproduction). This ongoing study examines whether temporal binding is consistent across these tasks and whether it varies by interval length. To date, fifteen participants completed two sessions, each involving four timing tasks under causal and non-causal conditions, with action-effect delays of 250 ms, 625 ms, and 1000 ms. Median responses were analysed using a 2 (Condition: causal vs. non-causal) × 2 (Session) × 3 (Interval) repeated-measures ANOVA. The Libet Clock task revealed a significant Condition × Interval interaction (F(2,28) = 4.63, p < .05), with stronger temporal binding for causal trials at 250 ms (t(14) = -3.16, p < .001, mean diff. = 30.23 ms) and 1000 ms (t(14) = -2.83, p < .05, mean diff. = 18.14 ms). The Reproduction task similarly showed a Condition × Interval interaction (F(2,28) = 6.49, p < .01), with greater under-reproduction for causal trials at 250 ms (t(14) = -2.78, p < .05, mean diff. = 95.72 ms) and 625 ms (t(14) = -2.29, p < .05, mean diff. = 86.04 ms). Response Mapping also exhibited a significant Condition × Interval interaction (F(2,28) = 12.25, p < .001), with stronger binding at 1000 ms (t(14) = -4.64, p < .001, mean diff. = 49.50 ms), alongside trends at 250 ms (t(14) = -2.02, p = .06) and 625 ms (t(14) = 1.87, p = .08). The Estimation task showed neither a main effect of condition (F(1,14) = 0.07, p = .79) nor a significant Condition × Interval interaction (F(2,28) = 2.13, p = .14). These findings suggest that temporal binding occurs across both event and interval timing tasks but is shaped by the specific task and interval used. We propose a follow-up study using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the left angular gyrus to test whether event timing can be selectively disrupted without affecting interval timing.