CAOS 2026 - Part 1 | Rovereto, 6 - 8 May | Domenica Bueti

CAOS 2026 - Part 1 | Rovereto, 6 - 8 May | Domenica Bueti

🎙 Domenica Bueti 👥 2K 📅 September 21, 2026 ⏱ 77 min 👁 11 📄 original study 🧭 2026-10-15
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

time perceptiondurationneural codingpopulation receptive fieldhierarchy

Summary

Domenica Bueti presents her research on how the brain tracks time in the range of hundreds of milliseconds to seconds. She emphasizes that time perception is not a unitary high-level process but is deeply grounded in sensory processing. Using psychophysical experiments, she shows that stimulus contrast and speed bias perceived duration, suggesting that low-level sensory features influence temporal judgments. She then describes a 7T fMRI study using population receptive field (pRF) modeling to investigate the relationship between spatial and temporal coding across the visual hierarchy. The results reveal a transition from space-dependent, monotonic time responses in early visual areas to space-independent, Gaussian-tuned time responses in frontal regions, with a mixed pattern in parietal areas. This suggests a functional hierarchy where time coding evolves from sensory-based to more abstract representations. The talk underscores that the brain integrates sensory dynamics to construct subjective time, providing evidence against purely dedicated time perception circuits.

150 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The talk provides valuable insights into the neural basis of time perception, advancing the argument that time coding is multi-staged and begins at sensory levels. The argumentation is solid, supported by complementary psychophysical and neuroimaging data. The speaker logically builds from behavioral biases to neural models, carefully interpreting pRF results and acknowledging the complexity of the transition zones. The emphasis on linking sensory features (contrast, speed) to time judgments and then mapping them to neural selectivities offers a compelling framework. The research addresses a fundamental question in perception and contributes to refining models of temporal processing.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The talk references several previous studies and includes appropriate citations, though no explicit URLs are provided in the talk itself. The workshop description provides a link to the event site, which is included. The scientific rigor is high: the methods (7T fMRI, pRF modeling) are state-of-the-art, and the results are carefully quantified. The title adequacy is acceptable but generic; the actual talk title from the description better reflects the content. The video is technically well-produced, with clear slides and presentation.

191 words

Title / Content Match

The video title indicates the workshop and speaker, while the actual talk title in the description specifies the scientific topic. The content matches the talk title well.

Quality & Reliability

8/10

The talk presents original research with clear methodology, references previous studies, and uses rigorous neuroimaging and psychophysical approaches. The speaker is an established researcher in time perception.

Key Moments

Cited Sources

Contribution & Novelties

The talk presents original findings from ongoing research, particularly the use of pRF modeling to simultaneously assess spatial and temporal selectivity. This approach reveals a distinct gradient in how space and time are coded across the visual hierarchy, with early visual cortex showing space-dependent monotonic responses and frontal areas showing time-tuned Gaussian responses. The identification of intermediate zones (e.g., IPS) where both dimensions and transitions interplay offers a fresh perspective on temporal processing. The psychophysical data also reinforce the influence of low-level features on time perception, suggesting a sensory grounding.

Pour aller plus loin :

128 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows high scores in quality and reliability, with good information quantity and technical level. The strength lies in the strong argumentation and neuroscientific rigor, while the lower quantity score reflects the focused scope of the talk, which is appropriate for a workshop presentation.

Reliability 8/10