Daved van Stralen, MD, FAAP; Sean D. McKay, Element Rescue, LLC; Thomas A. Mercer, RAdm, USN (Retired) 

Introduction 

How we perceive time influences our study of time. We may perceive time as continuity or a series of instances. Most likely, we perceive time as a quantitative continuum that we add to – how much time? We discriminate quantitative measures by additive or “prothetic” processes. Time as a quantitative continuum is a “prothetic process.” Prothesis in phonetics refers to adding a syllable or sound to the beginning of a word. In psychophysics and experimental psychology, a prothetic process is the linear addition of a quantity to a continuum at the physiological level. Time considered as linear measurements will become confounded by nonlinearity (1). 

Continua for type and position are “metathetic” processes, physiological ones that substitute additions rather than adding to existing measurements. These are qualitative measures as we are changing the quality of the process (1). Consideration of time as a prothetic, or additive, process means we discriminate categories based on our sensitivity to differences. Psychophysics describes this as “just noticeable differences” or JND (1). 

Time, a linear, prothetic process, is readily considered a line without a beginning or end. However, we can use other time models, such as a branching tree model where the past is fixed and linear, but the future is open. Time branches into multiple possible futures (2). These approaches find different uses, such as planning compared to engagement in a novel or uncertain situation. 

The fundamental distinction in the realm of instant-based time models reflects contrasting perspectives on the nature of temporal progression. One pivotal categorization within this domain revolves around the dichotomy between linear and backward-linear models, each offering unique insights into time structure. 

[CLICK TO READ FULL ARTICLE BELOW]

References: 

1. Stevens SS. On the Psychophysical Law. Psychological Review 1957;64(3):153-81.

2. Goranko V, Rumberg A. Temporal Logic. In: Zalta EN, Nodelman U, editors. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2023 ed. on line: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University; 2023. 

3. Fuster J. The Prefrontal Cortex: Academic Press; 2015. 

4. Emery N, Markosian N, Sullivan M. Time. In: Zalta EN, editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2020 Edition ed: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University; 2020. 

5. Roy M, Shohamy D, Wager. TD. Ventromedial prefrontal-subcortical systems and the generation of affective meaning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2012;16(3):147-56. 

6. Fellows LK, Farah MJ. The role of ventromedial prefrontal cortex in decision making: judgment under uncertainty or judgment per se? Cereb Cortex. 2007;17(11):2669-74. Epub 2007/01/30. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhl176. PubMed PMID: 17259643. 

7. Mobbs D, Headley DB, Ding W, Dayan P. Space, Time, and Fear: Survival Computations along Defensive Circuits. Trends Cogn Sci. 2020;24(3):228-41. Epub 2020/02/08. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.12.016. PubMed PMID: 32029360. 

8. Mobbs D, Petrovic P, Marchant JL, Hassabis D, Weiskopf N, Seymour B, et al. When fear is near: threat imminence elicits prefrontal-periaqueductal gray shifts in humans. Science. 2007;317(5841):1079-83. Epub 2007/08/25. doi: 10.1126/science.1144298. PubMed PMID: 17717184; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2648508. 

9. Adolphs R. The biology of fear. Curr Biol. 2013;23(2):R79- 93. Epub 2013/01/26. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.11.055. PubMed PMID: 23347946; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3595162. 

10. Graziano MS, Cooke DF. Parieto-frontal interactions, personal space, and defensive behavior. Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(6):845-59. Epub 2005/11/10. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.09.009. PubMed PMID: 16277998. 

11. Berkun MM, Bialek HM, Kern RP, Yag K. Experimental Studies of Psychological Stress in Man. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied. 1962;76(15):1-39 

12. Koutsikou S, Apps R, Lumb BM. Top down control of spinal sensorimotor circuits essential for survival. The Journal of Physiology. 2017;595(13):4151-8. 

13. Watson TC, Koutsikou S, Cerminara NL, Flavell CR, Crook J, Lumb BM, et al. The olivo-cerebellar system and its relationship to survival circuits. Frontiers in Neural Circuits. 2013;7. 

14. Brill-Maoz N, Maroun M. Extinction of fear is facilitated by social presence: Synergism with prefrontal oxytocin. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2016;66:75-81. Epub 2016/01/23. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2016.01.003. PubMed PMID: 26799850. 

15. Panksepp J, Fuchs T, Iacobucci P. The basic neuroscience of emotional experiences in mammals: The case of subcortical FEAR circuitry and implications for clinical anxiety. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2011;129(1):1-17. 

16. LeDoux JE, Pine DS. Using Neuroscience to Help Understand Fear and Anxiety: A Two-System Framework. Am J Psychiatry. 2016;173(11):1083-93. Epub 2016/11/02. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16030353. PubMed PMID: 27609244. 

17. Oatley K, Johnson-Laird PN. Cognitive approaches to emotions. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014;18(3):134-40. Epub 2014/01/07. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.004. PubMed PMID: 24389368. 

18. Ochsner KN, Gross JJ. Cognitive emotion regulation: Insights from social cognitive and affective neuroscience. Current directions in psychological science. 2008;17(2):153-8. 

19. Heilman RM, Crişan LG, Houser D, Miclea M, Miu AC. Emotion regulation and decision making under risk and uncertainty. Emotion Review. 2010;10(2):257-65. 

20. Cutuli D. Cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression strategies role in the emotion regulation: an overview on their modulatory effects and neural correlates. Frontiers in systems neuroscience. 2014;8:175. 

21. Gross JJ. Emotion regulation: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In: Gross JJ, editor. Handbook of emotion regulation. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2014. p. New York, N. 

22. Lloyd DM. The space between us: A neurophilosophical framework for the investigation of human interpersonal space. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 2009;33(3):297- 304. 

23. van Stralen D, McKay SD, Mercer TA. Operational Logics and Inference During [1/f or f -1] Noise Events: High-Reliability Operations (HRO). Neonatology Today. 2022;17(3):18- 31. 

Disclosure: The authors have no disclosures.