Psychology of Sport & Exercise 69 (2023) 102500

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Psychology of Sport & Exercise

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

Temporal perception in closed-skill sports: An experimental study on expert

swimmers and runners
Simona Perrone a, Luca Rinaldi b, c, Daniele Gatti b, Luisa Girelli a, d, *
a
Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy
b
Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
c
Cognitive Psychology Unit, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy
d
NeuroMI, Milan Center for Neuroscience, Milano, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The cognitive benefits of closed-skill sports practice have so far been scantily investigated. Here, we thus focused
Timing on the potential impact of swimming and running - two sports that highly rely on a precise control of timing - on
Time perception time processing. To investigate the impact of these closed-skill sports on time perception and estimation, three
Time estimation
groups of participants (for a total of eighty-four young adults) took part in the present study: expert swimmers,
Expert athletes
Closed-skill sports
expert runners, and non-athletes. The ability to process temporal information in the milliseconds and seconds
range was assessed through a time reproduction and a finger-tapping tasks, while a motor imagery paradigm was
adopted to assess temporal estimation of sport performance in a wider interval range. We also employed the
Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire to assess the individual’s ability of motor imagery. Results
showed that closed-skill sports, specifically time-related disciplines, enhance motor imagery and time perception
abilities. Swimmers were more accurate and consistent in perceiving time when compared to runners, probably
thanks to the sensory muffled environment that leads these athletes to be more focused on the perception of their
internal rhythm.

1. Introduction Wolpert, 2011).

Perception and estimation of time are fundamental human abilities
in almost any everyday-life activities (Wittman, 2009). Despite often
occurring implicitly, time processing is indeed constantly required in
multiple routines, such as when planning the early morning routines or
the time schedule to get to work, and when managing the appointments
in the agenda over the day or the time break for leisure activities.
Moreover, time perception is crucial in planning and executing any
motor behaviour, whether requiring or not (e.g., crossing the road)
single or multiple object manipulations (e.g., drinking, driving). In
particular, time processing abilities are central for producing motor
sequences and coordinating body movements (Avanzino et al., 2015). In
fact, people are constantly in motion and exposed to others’ actions in
the surrounding environment, with this in turn enhancing implicitly
their ability to perceive and extrapolate temporal and spatial features of
their own and others’ movements (Bove et al., 2017). As such, the highly
dynamic environment constantly requires individuals to program their
motor outputs on accurate time estimation of sensory inputs (Franklin &
Extraction of temporal information is extraordinarily relevant in the
field of sports. In fact, whatever the discipline, sports performance is
intrinsically dependent on fine-grained temporal processing (Aglioti,
Cesari, Romani, & Urgesi, 2008). Furthermore, through recurring
training sessions, athletes gain exceptional skills in decoding and per­
forming fast actions in space-time dimensions such as catching a ball in
the air or anticipating an opponent’s move (Chen, Pizzolato, & Cesari,
2014). In this respect, Chen and Cesari (2015), adopting a time repro­
duction task, reported a more refined internal clock (i.e., internal system
underlying the temporal perception of external events in the seconds to
minutes range; see Gibbon, Church, & Meck, 1984) in elite athletes than
non-athletes. In particular, fencers and pole-vaulters produced better
time estimates (i.e., showing higher accuracy and lower variability),
specifically in the sub-second range.
Recently, the influence of sports practice on cognitive functioning
has received increasing attention from scientific research. In particular,
studies have focused on the differential effect of practising closed-skill
and open-skill sports (Di Russo, 2010; Russo, Bigliassi, Ceciliani, &

* Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca Piazza dell’ Ateneo Nuovo 1, 20126, Milano, Italy.
E-mail address: luisa.girelli@unimib.it (L. Girelli).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2023.102500
Received 30 December 2022; Received in revised form 19 July 2023; Accepted 24 July 2023
Available online 28 July 2023
1469-0292/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Perrone et al.
Tessari, 2022). Open-skill sports are practised in a dynamic, unpre­
dictable, and externally-paced environment, in which athletes are
required to be flexible and fast in making decisions and executing ac­
tions (e.g., soccer, basketball, volleyball, fencing). Instead, closed-skill
sports are self-paced, performed in a static and predictable environ­
ment, and require a repetitive pattern of motions (e.g., running, swim­
ming, golf, cycling) (Brady, 1995, 1998; Wang et al., 2013).
In sport-cognition literature, one of the approach employed is the
cognitive component skills, which considers the sport-training context
beneficial to develop both sport-specific and general cognitive abilities
transferable outside the sport context in everyday life. According to this
hypothesis, sport practice enhances experience-dependent brain plas­
ticity, resulting in more efficient brain networks (Voss, Kramer, Basak,
Prakash, & Roberts, 2010). Solid evidence report changing in structural
and functional properties of the brain induced by physical exercise
(Hillman, Erickson, & Kramer, 2008, Voelcker-Rehage. & Niemann,
2013) and sport practice. For example, Wu and colleagues (Wu et al.,
2013) reported higher activity in the inferior parietal lobule and inferior
frontal gyrus during action anticipation in elite basketball players
compared to novice. Still involving basketball players, Aglioti and col­
leagues (Aglioti et al., 2008) reported superior predictive abilities of
elite athletes associated with differential activation of motor cortex
during the observation of erroneous and correct shots compared to
novice athletes.
Beneficial effects of open-skill sports on cognitive functions have
been largely documented (for review, see Gu, Zou, Loprinzi, Quan, &
Huang, 2019; but see also Di Russo et al., 2010; Scharfen & Memmert,
2019), probably due to the high cognitive demands, especially in terms
of executive functions, for reacting to multiple stimuli and adapting
continuously to the environment. In particular, both observational and
intervention studies showed superior functioning of open-compared to
closed-skill sports in terms of inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility,
problem solving, visuospatial attention and memory (Gu et al, 2019).
Similarly, Scharfen and Memmert (2019) in their meta-analysis reported
improved executive functioning in elite athletes compared to amateur
players, specifically in open-skill sports. For examples, Vestberg and
colleagues (Vestberg, Gustafson, Maurex, Ingvar, & Petrovic, 2012),
showed higher cognitive flexibility, metacognition, and working mem­
ory abilities employing standardized cognitive tasks such as the Design
Fluency task and the Backward Visual Memory Span in soccer players.
Similar results emerged in inhibitory control, short-term and working
memory, and cognitive flexibility when testing elite soccer players
compared to amateurs (Huijgen et al., 2015; Verburgh, Scherder, Van
Lange, & Oosterlaan, 2014). Furthermore, Moratal and colleagues
(Moratal, Lupiáñez, Ballester, & Huertas, 2020) investigated the asso­
ciation between regular practice of soccer and executive control beside
attentional function by means of the Attentional Network Test - In­
teractions (ANT-I). Results showed overall faster responses and better
executive control in soccer players compared to non-athletes. In a
further study, soccer players showed a better vigilance performance in
the Psychomotor Vigilance Task compared to non-athletes (Ballester,
Huertas, Yuste, Llorens, & Sanabria, 2015).
On the contrary, the impact of close-skills sports practice on cogni­
tive functioning has been less documented (Bekendam, Diaz, & García,
2019; Lum, Enns, & Pratt, 2002). Some evidence was provided by Lum
et al. (2002), in a study investigating visual orienting abilities by
comparing sports practised in a dynamic (i.e., soccer and volleyball) and
in a static (i.e., swimming and track) environment. Swimmers and track
athletes were found to be more successful than soccer and volleyball
players in suppressing distractors cues from target location, indicating
their benefit to filter out environmental stimuli that are not
performance-related (e.g., movement from opponents or spectators). A
suggestive result favouring swimmers over sedentary participants was
also reported in relation to spatial processing and reasoning skills
(Bekendam et al., 2019). Finally, other studies mostly focused on the
investigation of temporal processing skills employing sports-specific
2
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 69 (2023) 102500
tasks, revealed fine temporal abilities in closed-skill athletes (e.g.,
swimming, running; Bove et al., 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2020; Tobin &
Grondin, 2012; Tobin & Grondin, 2015). Closed-skill sports training in
fact involves many repetitions of motor actions to enhance automati­
zation of technical gestures improving speed, accuracy and releasing
attentive resources for its temporal processing (Tobin & Grondin, 2012).
In particular, actions carried out routinely would allow athletes to learn
their duration progressively, enabling them to improve time perception
and estimation skills. This would lead to what Tobin and Grondin (2012)
named as task duration knowledge (TDK), namely long-term stored
knowledge about the temporal duration of any highly trained task.
Among closed-skill sports, running and swimming may represent
ideal contexts to investigate time processing since performance in these
activities is time-related (i.e., higher speed = better performance).
Indeed, some studies indicated that elite swimmers (Tobin & Grondin,
2012) and expert runners (Tobin & Grondin, 2015) are highly accurate
in a variety of ecological tasks based on the temporal properties of the
specific sport. In particular, expert and intermediate runners were
required first to predict and then to estimate the time taken to cover a
specific distance, showing higher precision in expert prediction of their
running time (Tobin & Grondin, 2015). Similarly, swimmers were
required to estimate the time taken to swim for a specific distance
showing extreme accuracy in both their best and worst stroke. When
required to mentally visualise an action for a specific target duration,
elite swimmers were more precise when asked to visualise themselves
swimming than when visualising an unfamiliar motor action (Tobin &
Grondin, 2012). One may question whether the athletes’ advantages in
time processing may simply result from the length of practice or whether
the development of fine temporal skills requires temporal feedback
(Ryan & Robey, 2002), memories of task length (Roy, Christenfeld, &
McKenzie, 2005; Tobin & Grondin, 2012), and attention to the temporal
dimension (Brown, 1997). To this regard, comparing equally demanding
activities in terms of length of practice (e.g., hours per week), such as
playing video games and swimming/running, has revealed opposite
profiles in terms of time processing abilities, since time is critically
relevant only to the latter. In particular, Tobin, Bisson, and Grondin
(2010) reported that a group of gamers were quite imprecise at esti­
mating time in line with their claim to lose track of time while gaming.
Indeed, putting attention to the game duration is not relevant to perform
the game itself successfully; conversely, athletes pay close attention to
the distance travelled, the time spent and, in turn, their speed (Tobin &
Grondin, 2015). Furthermore, getting timely feedback is equally
important to develop temporal expertise, providing useful information
to progressively improve time estimates (Edward & McCormick, 2017;
Tobin & Grondin, 2015; Ryan & Robey, 2002). All these crucial factors
make swimming and running ideal contexts for investigating the impact
of closed-skill practice on the temporal abilities and their generalization
toward sport-unrelated contexts.
As mentioned before, the effect of practicing time-related disciplines
on temporal abilities has been investigated even using motor imagery
(MI; i.e., a dynamic mental state during which a motor action or
movement is re-enacted in working memory without any real motor
output) since mental imagery is widely exploited in sports training as a
tool to improve athletes’ performance (Hall, 2001), although its
long-term efficacy is still questioned (Ladda, Lebon & Lotze, 2021).
Tobin and Grondin (2012) administered a MI task to elite swimmers
requiring them to visualise both a familiar (i.e., swimming) and an un­
familiar action (i.e., climbing Mount Everest) for 36s. Results showed
higher accuracy for the familiar action, indicating that having tasks’
knowledge stored over a long period contributes to developing an ac­
curate temporal perception even when the action is only visualised. This
may be due to the cyclic nature of swimming, resulting in a simpler and
more accurate mental visualisation given that repeating the same
movement allows, implicitly, to segment time intervals (Guillot &
Collet, 2005; Tobin & Grondin, 2012).
Despite the contribution of the aforementioned studies, the literature
S. Perrone et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 69 (2023) 102500

investigating the factors responsible for the influence of sports practice and 25 years old (Mage = 20.98, SD = 2.51 years), took part in the
on temporal perception is still limited (Behm & Carter, 2020) and rather present study. Twenty-eight of them were swimmers (14 males), 28
unspecific with regard to sport characteristics. Indeed, the investigation were track runners (14 males), and 28 were non-athletes (12 males). The
of the relationship between sports practice and cognitive functioning groups of swimmers and runners consisted of expert athletes actively
requires considering specificities of the cognitive, perceptual, and motor engaged in training (at least twice per week) and competing at provin­
requirements of the sport examined. Furthermore, only a few studies (e. cial, and national levels. Athletes were recruited via advertisement in
g., Chen & Cesari, 2015; Chen et al., 2014) analysed the role of local sports clubs in Milano, Varese, and Monza area. Descriptive data of
closed-skill sports practice on temporal perception using classical tem­ athletes’ expertise is reported in Table 1.1 Non-athletes were students
poral tasks widely adopted in the cognitive literature. The implemented from the University of Milano-Bicocca and formed the control group.
tasks are often sport-specific, limiting the value of the control group The inclusion criteria were neither having practiced sports competi­
comparison and the generalization of time processing skills out of the tively nor regularly practicing any sport, in particular swimming and
sports context (e.g., Tobin & Grondin, 2012, 2015). running. Our sample size was based on a recent study by Russo et al.
(2022) comparing cognitive performance of open-and closed-skill ath­
1.1. Purpose of the present study letes. All participants gave written informed consent to the study in
accordance with the procedure approved by the Ethics Committee of the
The purpose of the present study is to compare swimmers and run­ University of Milano-Bicocca (RM-2021-466).
ners on time perception and estimation. Despite the relevance of chro­
nometric time in both disciplines, swimming and running are practised
2.2. Measures
in completely different environments. Swimmers daily train with a
muffling of sensory stimuli (e.g., visual, and auditory), as opposed to
2.2.1. The Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire (VMIQ)
runners. Accordingly, this aquatic condition may be expected to cause
The adapted Italian version of the VMIQ (Antonietti & Crespi, 1995,
athletes to rely comparatively more on their internal rhythm than on the
original version: Isaac, Marks, and Russell; 1986) was used to assess an
external stimuli as partially supported by previous study (Zachopoulou,
individual’s ability of motor imagery. In particular, participants are
Mantis, Serbezis, Teodosiou, & Papadimitriou, 2000).
required to imagine themselves performing 24 simple motor tasks from
In light of the available evidence, we hypothesized that 1) the
basic body movements to movements demanding precision and control
practice of closed skill sports enhances time perception ability, thus
in upright, unbalanced, and aerial situations. The items were adminis­
swimmers and runners would have overall better performance than non-
tered in Italian, and fall into six groups of four items each: I) items
athletes in computerized time perception and estimation abilities, 2) in
relating to basic body movements (e.g., walking); II) items relating to
the temporal production with MI, athletes would be more accurate for
basic but precise movements (e.g., kicking a stone); III) items relating to
the practiced activity (i.e., swimming for swimmers, running for run­
movement with control but some unplanned risk (e.g., jumping side­
ners) than for the non-practiced one (e.g., running for swimmers), and
ways); IV) items relating to movement controlling an object (e.g., hitting
overall all athletes would be more accurate than control participants; 3)
a ball along the ground); V) items relating to movements which cause
athletes would be more accurate in the production of familiar intervals
imbalance and recovery (e.g., riding a bike); VI) items relating to
with MI (i.e., 17s and 29s) compared to the unfamiliar one (i.e., 41s); 4)
movements demanding control in aerial situations (e.g., jumping into
swimmers would have better temporal skills than runners, thanks to
water). Participants were asked to rate the vividness of the motor im­
training matching specific environmental demands.
agery after each item with reference to a 5-point scale (i.e., 5: perfectly
clear and as vivid as normal vision, 4: clear and reasonably vivid; 3:
2. Method
moderately clear and vivid; 2: vague and dim; 1: no image at all). Par­
ticipants answered by pressing the corresponding number key using the
2.1. Participants
dominant hand. The instructions were presented both verbally and in
written form on the screen and specified that there was no time limit.
Eighty-four (40 males and 44 females) participants, aged between 18
2.2.2. Time reproduction task
Table 1
In the time reproduction task, the temporal performance depends on
Descriptive data of the three groups of participants.
two main factors, attention and working memory. Participants were
Group Age Gender Expertise instructed to reproduce the duration of a target stimulus (Block, 1998;
Experience Frequency Training Mioni, Stablum, Prunetti, & Grondin, 2016). The target stimulus was a
(years) (times/week) hours/ white circle presented on a black background that appeared at the centre
week) of the computer screen concurrently with a white sound at 400 Hz,
Controls 22.53 16M, – – – presented via headphones, for 500, 1000, or 1500 ms. Then, the state­
(2.51) 12F ment “Now it’s your turn to stop the sound” appeared on the computer
Runners 20.10 14M, 5.86 (3.24) 4.86 (1.27) 9.84 (3.35)
screen followed by the presentation of a grey circle concurrent with a
(2.16) 14F
Swimmers 20.25 14M, 10.21 (2.48) 4.18 (1.54) 7.73 (5.29) white sound at 400 Hz that remained on the screen until participants
(2.15) 14F pressed the space bar. Each duration was randomly presented 12 times,
for a total of 36 reproduction trials. Three practice trials of 1000 ms
preceded the test trials to familiarise participants with the task.

1
To control for overall sport expertise, we combined the practice factors in a
single expertise index (frequency x weeks of the year x experience). We found no
difference between swimmers and runners in the expertise [t(54) = − 1, p = .1].
In addition, the results did not differ using expertise as a covariate in all the
analyses. the only difference was in the temporal production task, where the
interaction vividness by interval was no longer significant, possibly due to the
lower sample size (i.e., 1/3 of the sample in these control analyses was
dropped).

3
S. Perrone et al.
Participants were strongly encouraged not to use any mental strategy (e.
g., counting). No feedback was provided.
2.2.3. Paced finger-tapping task
The paced finger-tapping task is based on a sensorimotor synchroni­
zation in which an action (i.e., tapping of fingers) is temporally con­
current with a predictable external event (i.e., visual and/or auditive
stimulus). Specifically, it consisted of two consecutive phases, a syn­
chronization phase and a continuation phase (Janzen, Thompson,
Ammirante, & Ranvaud, 2014; Michon, 1967; Stevens, 1886). For each
trial, participants first synchronized their movements (i.e., pressing the
space bar) with an isochronous stimulus for 18 times. The stimulus was a
white circle presented on a black background that appeared at the centre
of the computer screen concurrently with a white sound at 400 Hz,
presented via headphones. After the synchronization phase, the stimulus
stopped and participants were instructed to continue to produce, as
accurately as possible, 36 more movements at the same rate. Within
each trial, one of two tempos (i.e., inter-onset interval, IOI) was used:
slow (800 ms IOI) or fast (600 ms IOI). Each IOI was randomly presented
10 times, for a total of 20 trials. Participants familiarised with the task
via presentation of a single practice trial. They were strongly encouraged
not to use any mental strategy (e.g., counting). No feedback was
provided.
2.2.4. Verbal estimation and time production through motor imagery (M0,
M1, M2)
The MI task was adapted following the study of Tobin and Grondin
(2012). Time was recorded with a manual chronometer. A thin floor mat
(yoga mat) was used for the participants to lie on during the experi­
mental procedure. Participants were instructed to lie on a floor yoga mat
with their hands by their sides, keeping their eyes closed. They were
then instructed to visualise themselves running or swimming for a series
of time intervals. Participants held a manual chronometer, face down, in
their dominant hand and pressed the start/stop button themselves. The
visualised duration was recorded by the experimenter, and the chro­
nometer was reset without giving any feedback about the performance
until the end of the experimental session. Athletes were instructed not to
count mentally, only to visualise, trying to be as accurate as possible.
The MI task described above include 7 trials. The first one (M0)
required participants (a) a temporal estimation of a familiar sport action;
(b) the mental visualisation of that action for the estimated time. In
order to prevent estimation biases in M0, this was the first task for all
participants. In particular, swimmers had to estimate and mentally
visualise the time taken to swim freestyle 50 m at 80% of their highest
speed; runners the time taken to run 200 m at 80% of their highest
speed; finally, the control group the time for making two flights of stairs.
The distances of 50 and 200 m were selected in order to get similar time
intervals for both groups of athletes. In addition, they represented well-
trained distances for everyone regardless of the specific sports expertise
(i.e., sprints, middle or long distances). The “taking the stairs” condition
for non-athletes was supposed to be highly familiar for everyone.
The others 6 trials required participants to mentally visualise three
target intervals (i.e., 29, 17 e 41 s). The intervals were thoughtfully
selected during the experimental design through information collected
via the questionnaire. Specifically, 29s represented the familiar dura­
tion, corresponding to a specific and highly trained distance equally long
in term of chronometric time for both swimmers and runners (i.e.,
respectively 50 m for swimmers and 200 m for runners). For this reason,
the 29s interval was always the first trial to be presented. Instead, 17s
and 41s were defined as unfamiliar durations, since they did not
correspond to standard distances and were thus, possibly, more difficult
to visualise. Each duration was performed by athletes under two con­
ditions (for a total of six trials) (1) imagining practising their sport (M1;
i.e., swimming for swimmers and running for runners); (2) imagining
executing the unpractised sport (M2; i.e., running for swimmers and
swimming for runners). The order of the sports for non-athletes was
4
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 69 (2023) 102500
randomized. The order of the two unfamiliar intervals (i.e., 17s and 41s)
was counterbalanced across participants, and was kept fixed within
participants for both M1 and M2 conditions. In M1, athletes were
required to visualise themselves at their daily training sports centre. In
addition, in swimming sessions, swimmers were required to perform MI
only freestyle, while runners and control participants were free to
choose the more familiar swimming style. A total of 7 MI sessions were
performed (in alternation with other tasks): 1 × M0 and 6 × M1/M2 (3
× M1 and 3 × M2) (see Figure 1).
2.3. Experimental procedure
The experimental procedure was divided into two phases. First, the
participants had to fill out an online questionnaire assessing their sports
experience. The questionnaire collected some socio-demographic data
(e.g., age, gender, language, profession), some information about sports
practice (e.g., “How old did you start swimming/running?”; How old did
you start swimming/running competitively?”) and, additionally, it
included questions intended to assess the athletes’ ability to estimate the
time needed to cover a certain distance in the practiced sport (e.g.,
“From 1 to 5, how much do you think you can accurately estimate the
time taken to swim 50 m freestyle?”), the time needed for covering
distances at a certain speed (e.g., “Imagine you’re training and you are
going to run 100 m at 80% of your highest speed, what time would you
do it?”) and the frequency of receiving temporal feedback (e.g., “From 1
to 5, how often do you get feedback on the time it takes to swim 100 m
freestyle?”). Items used to investigate familiarity and abilities in the
non-practiced, control sport (i.e., running for swimmers and swimming
for runners) were also added.
The second phase of the experimental procedure consisted of a ses­
sion of 50 min, run on a different day, in which each participant was
presented with a series of tasks. The testing session was never run after a
training session. First, the individual ability of motor imagery was
assessed through the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire
(VMIQ; Isaac, Marks, & Russell, 1986). Then, we employed two tasks
widely implemented in the literature on temporal cognition, i.e., time
reproduction (Block, 1998; Mioni et al., 2016; Mioni, Mattalia, & Sta­
blum, 2013; Rammsayer, 2001; Zakay, 1990) and finger-tapping task
(Janzen et al., 2014; Michon, 1967; Stevens, 1886), to assess the ability
to perceive time. Finally, to assess the estimation and perception of time
related to sports practice, we adopted an ad-hoc motor imagery para­
digm (MI; Tobin & Grondin, 2012).
The two temporal tasks (time reproduction and finger-tapping) and
the VMIQ were programmed and administered with the software Psy­
chopy (Peirce, 2007). Stimulus presentation and data collection were
done using an HP laptop. The order of the tasks in the second session was
pseudo-randomized, specifically the execution of MI task to avoid
possible sequence effects. The tasks of the second sessions were
administered in a private, quiet, and neutral room at the university or
the sport center, large enough to allow participants to lie down during
MI tasks. Before starting, participants were briefly introduced to the aim
of the study and invited to ask any question in case of doubts.
2.4. Data analyses
The statistical analyses were performed using R-Studio (RStudio
Team, 2015) and the lme4 R package (Bates et al., 2015). In the tasks
analysed through linear-mixed-effects regression models (LMM; except
for the section 3.4 in which a linear model was estimated), data points
were removed on the basis of a threshold of 2.5 SD standardized residual
errors (model criticism; Baayen, 2008) to ensure that the obtained re­
sults did not depend on a few overly influential outliers. Results based on
the refitted models are here reported. Models’ assumptions were
checked by visually inspecting the plot of the residuals versus the fitted
values of the model.
Descriptive results (mean and SD for the main variables) in all tasks
S. Perrone et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 69 (2023) 102500

Figure 1. Timeline of the tasks in the experimental session.

for the three groups are reported in Table 2.
3. Results
3.1. VMIQ
Data from VMIQ was analysed through a LMM. The dependent var­
iable was the vividness (5 levels: 5: perfectly clear and as vivid as normal
vision, 4: clear and reasonably vivid; 3: moderately clear and vivid; 2:
vague and dim; 1: no image at all), while the independent variable was
group (3 levels: swimmers, runners, and controls). Participants and
items were included as random intercepts.
The model had marginal Pseudo-R2 = 0.03 and revealed that the
main effect group had a significant influence over the vividness of
movements [F(2,81) = 4.30, p = .017]. Post-hoc analysis indicated a
significant difference between runners (M = 3.99, SD = 1.06) and
controls (M = 3.5, SD = 1.26) [t(81) = − 2.84, p = .011, b = − 0.48 (SE =
0.17), Bonferroni correction], indicating that runners had higher level of
vividness compared to non-athletes. Conversely, the difference between
swimmers (M = 3.83, SD = 1.10) and controls did not reach significance
[t(81) = − 2.05, p = .087, b = − 0.35 (SE = 0.17), Bonferroni correction],
likewise the comparison between swimmers and runners [t(81) = 0.79,
p = .859, b = 0.13 (SE = 0.17), Bonferroni correction].
3.2. Time reproduction task
Data from the reproduction task was analysed through a LMM. The
dependent variable was the temporal precision (i.e., the difference be­
tween the target interval and the reproduced interval, with 0 ms cor­
responding to a perfect estimation). The independent variables were
group (3 levels: swimmers, runners, and controls) and time interval (3
levels: 500 ms, 1000 ms and 1500 ms). In addition, we performed a one-
sample t-test for each group for each duration, which provided an index
of the misestimation: a score above 0 indicated an overestimation of the
interval, while below 0 indicated an underestimation.
The model had marginal Pseudo-R2 = 0.15 and revealed a main effect
of time interval over the reproduction performance [F(2,2860) =
320.56, p < .001]. In addition, there was a significant interaction be­
tween group and time interval [F(4,2860) = 4.95, p < .001]. The post-
hoc analysis showed a significant difference between runners and
swimmers in the reproduction of the interval of 1500 ms [t(108) =
− 2.72, p = .014, b = − 74.81 (SE = 27.6), Bonferroni correction],
indicating that swimmers were more accurate in the reproduction of the
interval of 1500 ms compared to runners. Indeed, both groups under­
estimated the duration of 1500 ms, but runners did so to a larger extent
[swimmers, of − 92.34, t(335) = − 7.34, p < .001 vs runners, − 163.32
ms, t(335) = − 12.77, p < .001]. However, there was no significant
difference between controls and swimmers [t(109) = − 1.68, p = .192, b
= − 46.30 (SE = 27.6), Bonferroni correction] and between controls and
runners [t(109) = − 1.03, p = .608, b = − 28.52 (SE = 27.6), Bonferroni
correction]. The interval of 500 ms was overestimated by all groups:
swimmers of 53.27 ms [t(335) = 5.63, p < .001], runners of 45.42 ms [t
(335) = 5.19, p < .001] and controls of 54.04 [t(335) = 6.28, p < .001].
Finally, all groups were highly accurate in reproducing the interval of
1000 ms [swimmers, t(335) = 0.17, p = .864; runners, t(335) = − 1.01, p
= .313; controls, t(335) = − 0.56, p = .557] (see Figure 2A).
3.3. Finger-tapping task
The finger-tapping task was analysed through a LMM. Only the re­
sponses in the continuation phase were analysed as the synchronization
phase was used only to establish the pacing. Specifically, we focused on
the final 30 movements (Janzen et al., 2014). The dependent variable of
the LMM was the inter-response interval (IRI; the elapsed time between

Table 2
Descriptive results (mean and SD for the main variables) in all tasks for the three groups.
Group VIMQ Time reproduction Finger tapping Temporal Temporal production Temporal production (running)
estimation (swimming)

Δ time (s) Δ time (s) Δ time (s) Δ time (s)

500 1000 1500 First Second 17 29 41 17 29 41

Swimmers 3.83 53.27 1.92 − 92.34 36.57 28.81 − 2.29 .60 − .11 1.22 2.05 1.01 1.77
(1.10) (173.40) (205.53) (230.73) (93.75) (100.43) (8.55) (6.22) (10.73) (15.08) (6.67) (12.77) (14.33)
Runners 3.98 45.41 − 13.77 − 163.31 38.82 27.91 − 1.98 4.29 4.33 2.05 2.39 2.88 3.19
(1.05) (160.56) (250.03) (234.51) (67.41) (75.02) (8.31) (7.19) (8.64) (9.95) (6.94) (10.02) (13.50)
Controls 3.49 54.04 − 6.36 − 131.05 32.64 22.16 − 20.03 .83 − .20 1.16 1.80 .79 2.13
(1–25) (157.85) (208.85) (255.89) (71.78) (80.82) (24.09) (5.98) (14.21) (11.74) (5.94) (11.31) (14.52)

5
S. Perrone et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 69 (2023) 102500

Figure 2. Performance (mean, standard errors, and

datapoint distribution) in term of temporal precision
(i.e., difference between expected RTs and observed
RTs) in the reproduction task as a function of time
intervals and groups. Participants showed similar
pattern of responses across both 500 and 1000 ms
time intervals, while swimmers were more accurate
in the reproduction of the interval of 1500 ms
compared to runners (A). Performance difference in
the finger-tapping over trials in term of inter-response
interval (mean and 95% CI) as a function of groups;
for all participants performance improved as the task
progressed, but swimmers seemed to be more
consistent across the repetition phase than controls
and runners (B).

sequential taps, in milliseconds), while independent variables were

group (3 levels: swimmers, runners and controls) and trial order (i.e., the
sequence of the trials throughout the entire task). Participants and IOI
were set as a random effect. Then, following previous studies adopting
the Finger-tapping task (Petilli et al., 2018; 2020) the performance was
split in two halves to capture consistency over trials. Thus, the inde­
pendent variable trial order was transformed into a categorical variable,
(2 levels: first half, second half). Then, the same linear mixed-effects
regression model was performed.
The model had marginal Pseudo-R2 = 0.01 and revealed a significant
effect of trial order [F(1,48637) = 500.54, p < .001] and a significant
interaction between group by trial order [F(2,48637) = 4.70, p = .009].
Indeed, although for all participants performance improved as the task
progressed, swimmers seemed to be more consistent across the repeti­
tion phase than controls and runners [controls, t(48637) = − 13.48, p <
.001, b = − 0.71 (SE = 0.05); runners, t(48637) = − 14,79, p < .001, b =
− 0.78 (SE = 0.05); swimmers, t(48637) = − 10.49, p < .001, b = − 0.56
(SE = 0.05)].
Splitting the task in two halves, the model revealed a significant
effect of half [F(1,48627) = 349.71, p < .001] and an interaction effect
of half by group [F(2,48627) = 4.20, p = .015]. Post-hoc analysis
showed that, for all groups, performance in the first and in the second
half of the task differed (p < .001). Specifically, runners and controls
decreased significantly the discrepancy in the second part compared to
swimmers [controls, t(48627.02) = − 2.20, p = .03, b = − 2.86 (SE = Figure 3. Temporal precision in the estimation and production task as a
1.30); runners, t(48627.03) = − 2.74, p = .01, b = − 2.74 (SE = 1.30)]. function of groups; athletes were more accurate in producing the duration
previously estimated through MI as compared with control participants.
Overall, results indicated a greater increase in accuracy by runners and
controls during the task, compared to swimmers. However, the latter
appeared to have a more consistent performance during the task (see 4.11)].
Figure 2B).
3.5. Temporal production through MI (M1; M2)
3.4. Temporal estimation and production through MI (M0)
Data from MI was analysed through a LMM. The dependent variable
Data from M0 were analysed through a linear model. The dependent was the temporal precision (i.e., difference between the target interval
variable was the temporal precision (i.e., the difference between the and the produced one), while independent variables were group (3
verbal estimated time and the reproduced time through MI) and the levels: swimmers, runners, controls), activity (2 levels: swimming,
independent variable was group (3 levels: swimmers, runners, controls). running), imagery vividness, and time interval (3 levels: 29, 17, 41 s).
The linear model had an R2 = 0.24 and showed a significant main Participants was set as a random intercept. The main effects and in­
effect of group [F(2,80) = 12.3, p < .001]. Post-hoc revealed a signifi­ teractions are reported in Table 3.
cant difference between swimmers and controls [t(80) = − 4.28), p < The linear mixed-effect regression model had marginal Pseudo-R2 =
.001, b = − 17.74 (SE = 4.15)] and between runners and controls [t(80) 0.09 and revealed a main effect of imagery vividness [F(1,78) = 6.15, p
= − 4.35, p < .001, b = − 18.05 (SE = 4.15)], indicating that athletes = .015] and a significant interaction of imagery vividness by interval [F
were more accurate in producing the duration previously estimated (2,382) = 4.04, p = .018], indicating that the more the vividness the
through MI. Instead, the control group produced shorter time intervals longer the time intervals produced [17s, t(110) = 1.46, p = .15, b = 2.45
compared to the estimated one (see Figure 3). No difference were found (SE = 1.68); 29s, t(110) = 2.43, p = .02, b = 4.09 (SE = 1.68); 41s, t
between swimmers and runners [t(80) = 0.07, p = .941, b = 0.30 (SE = (117) = 3.64, p < .001, b = 6.22 (SE = 1.68)]. In particular, the

6
S. Perrone et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 69 (2023) 102500

Table 3 only to sports performance but also to acting efficiently in everyday life.
Main effects and interactions of the LMM on the Temporal Production tasks (M1, However, though expertise effects on timing skills have mainly been
M2). documented in musicians (see for a review, Ross & Balasubramaniam,
FIXED EFFECT NumDF DenDF F- P- 2022), little is known about the impact of sports practice on time pro­
value value cessing. Yet, self-paced disciplines requiring continuous rhythmic
Groups 2 78 0.91 0.405 movements are likely to enhance timing mechanisms, specifically timing
Activity 1 381 1.48 0.225 precision in domain-related timing tasks. We involved athletes prac­
Imagery vividness 1 78 6.17 0.015 ticing swimming and running - two comparable self-paced closed-skill
Time interval 2 381 1.68 0.188
disciplines – who are continuously exposed to chronometric and tem­
Group: activity 2 381 2.59 0.076
Group: imagery vividness 2 78 0.02 0.981 poral feedback. Despite these similarities, these athletes are trained in a
Activity: imagery vividness 1 382 1.4 0.237 very different environment since in swimmers’ daily training, sensory
Group: time interval 4 381 1.08 0.364 stimuli (e.g., auditory and visual) are muffled by the aquatic environ­
Activity: time interval 2 381 0.22 0.804 ment. In particular, in swimming, external stimuli are less relevant in
Imagery vividness: time interval 2 382 4.04 0.018
Group:activity:imagery vividness 2 382 1.78 0.169
facilitating the maintenance of the rhythm of the same movement over a
Group:activity: time interval 4 381 0.29 0.887 long time interval compared to running. Thus, a swimmer’ performance
Group: imagery vividness: time 4 382 0.58 0.677 may be mainly based on one’s control of his/her internal rhythm.
interval Therefore, we expected that athletes, even more swimmers, would
Activity:imagery vividness: time 2 382 1.19 0.305
perform better in all the tasks proposed (i.e., temporal perception tasks,
interval
Group:activity:imagery vividness: 4 382 0.42 0.792 estimation and production through MI, and VMIQ) compared to
time interval non-athletes.
Results partially supported our hypothesis, although depending on
the task at hand. Although no significant differences were found be­
production of 17 s was less overestimated compared to the interval of 41 tween athletes and controls, we found that swimmers performed
s [t(384) = − 2.23, p = .03, b = 5.17 (SE = 2.32)]. In summary, as the differently from runners in time reproduction and finger-tapping tasks.
imagery capacity increases, the overestimation tends to be greater the Swimmers were highly accurate in the supra-second interval and more
longer the time interval (see Figure 4). constant in maintaining their motor gestures after visual and auditory
synchronization. These results were probably due to the peculiarity of
4. Discussion their training context, enabling them to focus on their movement
rhythm to maintain it constant and accurate in time. Conversely, no
The novelty of the present study is to focus on the benefits of closed- significant differences were found between groups in MI productions
skill sports practice, a topic largely neglected in the sport literature. (M1; M2) nor on the sport visualised. Nevertheless, athletes accurately
Specifically, we investigated the influence of two popular disciplines, estimated and produced through MI time intervals related to their sports
swimming and running, on time perception and estimation abilities. practice (M0). Finally, runners, and to lesser extent swimmers, mentally
Extracting precise temporal information is, in fact, highly relevant not visualised actions more vividly than controls. Overall, the present study
highlights the impact of sport practice on higher-level cognitive func­
tions (Yarrow, Brown, & Krakauer, 2009), providing evidence for an
association between motor training demands and specific temporal
mechanisms. One may question whether higher temporal skills may
induce athletes to enroll in time-related disciplines instead of being the
outcome of practicing time-related disciplines, similar to questioning
any other cognitive advantage in experts compared to novices. Yet, we
believe that temporal skills, despite being central for producing motor
sequences and coordinating body movements, highly benefit from
intensive time-controlled practice more than being beneficial for
time-controlled performance. In other words, time processing abilities
are not a prerequisite for being a good swimmer, but long practice, no
doubt, trains internal temporal mechanisms.
Time reproduction task. In the time reproduction task, all groups
overall overestimated the 500 ms interval and, conversely, under­
estimated the 1500 ms interval. The present results are generally in line
with prior scientific evidence showing that short durations are usually
underestimated compared to longer durations (e.g., Vierordt’s Law;
Vierordt, 1868; Wearden & Lejeune, 2008). However, contrary to our
hypothesis, no significant difference was found between athletes and
non-athletes. The present findings differ slightly from what has been
reported by Chen and Cesari (2015), who investigated temporal
perception skills in elite athletes of open- and closed-skill sports
(respectively fencing and pole vaulting) with a time reproduction task,
and showed higher accuracy of athletes than non-athletes at sub-second
intervals, while no difference was reported at the supra-second level.
However, it is relevant to note that the task employed in their study
Figure 4. Performance in term of Temporal precision in MI task as a function of
tested a more comprehensive range of temporal durations (i.e., from
time intervals and of the individual vividness ability. The more vivid the image,
the longer the time intervals produced, with this effect interacting with par­ 300 ms to 1800 ms in 100 ms steps), allowing for a deeper investigation
ticipants’ imagery abilities. That is, as the imagery capacity increases, the of temporal skills related to sports expertise.
longer the interval and the greater the overestimation. Note that this plot in­ Nevertheless, in the present study, swimmers were significantly
cludes only the interaction effect that was found to be significant. more accurate in the 1500 ms interval when compared to runners.

7
S. Perrone et al.
Comparing the disciplines involved in the present (swimming, running)
and in Chen and Cesari’s (2015) study (fencing, pole vaulting), it is also
possible that the divergent performance in sub-second intervals may be
due to different motor demands related to the time dimension. While
pole vaulting involves explosive actions in a short time window, making
these athletes more accurate in the sub-second range, swimming and
running are characterized by recurring and cyclical movements for a
mid-long period. In other words, the divergent results in the two tem­
poral reproduction tasks may be due to each sport modality’s specific
cognitive, motor, and perceptive demands. In this regard, the superior
accuracy of swimmers compared to runners may be due to the daily
aquatic training context favoring their temporal skills.
Finger-tapping task. The swimmers’ advantages in temporal skills can
be also extended to the finger-tapping task. Indeed, swimmers appear
more consistent than runners and non-athletes in maintaining their
motor gestures (i.e., click space bar) during all the task trials. It seems
plausible that the motor experience gained enables swimmers to
recognize a movement rhythm and develop its temporal representation
(Bove et al., 2017). Furthermore, the significant muffling of external
sensory stimuli due to the water immersion would favor the develop­
ment of fine-tuned skills related to maintaining the right pace for
training or race performance without the help of external stimuli and
feedback. These findings are consistent with a pioneering study that
investigated rhythmic ability in children practicing different sports ac­
tivities (i.e., tennis, basketball, and swimming) and a control group,
employing a rhythm task consisting of a synchronization and continu­
ation phase of lower limbs movements with an auditory stimulus
(Zachopoulou, Mantis, Serbezis, Teodosiou e Papadimitriou, 2000).
Results showed that the swimming group maintained the rhythm con­
stant more accurately than all other groups. During swimming, in fact, as
in running, the rhythmic pace movements are repeated and stable dur­
ing an extended time period. Still, in the former, this occurs in the
absence of external auditory stimuli advantaging swimmers compare to
runners (Zachopoulou, et al., 2000), endorsing the cognitive component
skill approach (Voss et al., 2010). Indeed, the consistency swimmers
show in maintaining the rhythm of movement without external stimu­
lation reflects what swimming training requires. Moreover, runners did
not differ from non-athletes in the finger-tapping task, partially in line
with the study of Janzen and colleagues (Janzen et al., 2014) in which
this paradigm was presented to a variety of elite athletes (practicing
many disciplines, such as rowing, swimming, martial arts, rugby) and
controls. Overall, the evidence supports the view that enhanced time
pacing is not associated with movement-based expertise in general but
with motor training matching specific environmental demands.
The Vividness of Movements Imagery Questionnaire. The results from
the VMIQ revealed superior vividness abilities in athletes compared to
controls, although this advantage did not reach significance for swim­
mers. This pattern of results supports previous studies showing athletes’
higher mental vividness skills than controls, regardless of sports exper­
tise (e.g., Di Corrado, Guarnera, & Quartiroli, 2014; Isaac & Marks,
1994). However, since the questionnaire includes no item referring to
aquatic actions but mostly all to the motor schemes of runners (e.g.,
running, running upstairs, running downhill), the latter may be favored
in their vividness scores, explaining the pattern of observed results.
Indeed, neurophysiological evidence suggests that expert athletes use
motor imagery more effectively than novices only for the activities they
have the expertise (Fourkas, Bonavolontà, Avenanti, & Aglioti, 2008;
Zhang et al., 2018).
Temporal estimation and production through MI (M0). Athletes were
highly accurate in estimating and producing temporal intervals using
MI; conversely, non-athletes overestimated actions’ duration. The pre­
sent findings confirmed our initial hypothesis; nonetheless, it is relevant
to highlight that the superior temporal performance shown by athletes
may have been favored by a suboptimal selection of the control task.
Indeed, estimating the time taken to swim or run 50 or 200 m rely on
TDK related to a highly familiar action. Accordingly, athletes have
8
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 69 (2023) 102500
exceptional knowledge about the chronometric time needed to cover
specific distances, thanks to years of training and several temporal
feedback (Tobin & Grondin, 2012). On the contrary, the estimation
required to non-athletes (i.e., estimating the time spent to take two
flights of stairs) is likely based on the re-enactment of daily movement
execution memories not associated with precise temporal information.
Indeed, although taking stairs is a familiar activity to everyone in
everyday life, people rarely pay attention to its temporal duration, a
primary condition for enhancing temporal processing (Brown, 1997).
Temporal production through MI (M1; M2). Contrary to our pre­
dictions, athletes did not appear superior in producing MI than non-
athletes, irrespective of familiarity with the time interval (29 s vs. 17
s, 41 s) or the sport employed (swimming or running). Our results differ
substantially from what has been reported by Tobin and Grondin (2012),
in which swimmers showed high accuracy in mentally producing a
familiar action (i.e., swimming) than an unfamiliar one (i.e., climbing
Mount Everest). Yet, while their control action is likely unfamiliar to all
(i.e., almost none would have climbed Mount Everest; thus, memory
recall for MI would be impossible), running and swimming are likely to
be familiar for most participants regardless of their level of expertise.
However, Tobin and Grondin (2012) did not include a control group,
making their results less clear-cut.
Additionally, we investigated whether MI performance was associ­
ated with individual differences in mental vividness ability. Findings
showed that mental vividness ability (measured through the VMIQ) af­
fects temporal production regardless of the sports expertise, i.e., the
richer the image, the greater the overestimation. A suggestive expla­
nation is that very strong or very fragile imagery would imply a mental
experience so immersive and intense or so fuzzy to induce imagery
temporal distortion. Conversely, average vividness ability would allow
individuals to perceive time more accurately. The vividness of imagery
refers to a mental image characterized by sensory richness (Di Corrado
et al., 2020). Accordingly, MI time could be positively related to the ease
of sensory experience extraction, enabling a greater mental image
richness. Thus, the more information is extracted from a stimulus, the
longer would be the perceived duration (Matthews & Meck, 2016).
However, this explanation would be more arguable if we had observed
this effect on athletes’ performance. Indeed, Jia, Zhang, and Feng (2020)
suggested that expert athletes perceive longer duration when viewing
expertise-related stimuli than other sports athletes or controls. Never­
theless, in the present study, being running and swimming highly
familiar to most participants regardless of sport expertise, their mental
imagery was facilitated, leading to produce longer time intervals.
5. Limitations and future directions
The present study, along with similar research on sport practice ef­
fect, faces the complexity associated with recruiting a very selected
population (i.e., competitive athletes). This has impacts on two major
components of the study: on the one hand, our athletes partially differed
in terms of years of expertise and intensity of practice, and we cannot
exclude that these variables may have influenced the observed findings.
Future studies could use these practice indexes to investigate whether
the expertise in a given sport predicts humans’ performance in the tasks
at hand, thus providing more direct evidence. On the other hand,
compared with other studies in the psychological domain, the sample
size can seem small (even though in line with studies investigating the
same topic, Russo et al., 2022). Still, it is highly dependent on the
complexity of the recruitment.
As an additional limit, it should be noted that it is almost impossible
to recruit participants who have never been involved in sports activities
at all (see also Russo et al., 2022). As previously discussed, the control
condition for the mental imagery task was intended to represent a
baseline measure of recalling a very familiar action but, likely, was not
comparable to the experts’ condition. Finally, although participants
were explicitly asked not to use any mental strategy (e.g., counting), it is
S. Perrone et al.
important to emphasize that MI and vividness of mental images are
self-report measures and thus dependent on a wholly subjective and
unverifiable performance.
6. Conclusions
The present study suggests that closed-skill sports practice may
enhance specific cognitive mechanisms. Specifically, time-related dis­
ciplines are partially associated with better time-processing abilities: the
swimmers’ superiority in temporal tasks suggests that the sensory
muffled environment represented by water immersion leads these ath­
letes to be more focused on the perception of their internal rhythm. The
present findings are in line with the scanty literature on time processing
in athletes which emphasizes the temporal ability of swimmers (Bove
et al., 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2020; Tobin & Grondin, 2012). Due to the
relevance of motor imagery in sports performance, future studies should
explore the extent to which time processing is equally accurate for real
and mentally imagined actions.
In conclusion, the literature examining sports’ influence on cognitive
functions has focused on the greater benefits of open-over closed-skill
practice, especially regarding executive functioning. The present results
pinpoint the value of closed-skill sports, for which performance is
mainly based on chronometric time, besides technicalities of motor
gestures in enhancing athletes’ temporal estimation. Based on the
cognitive theory of training transfer, it is reasonable to suggest that this
ability might not only impact sport performance but also expand toward
sport-unrelated contexts (e.g., Furley & Memmert, 2011). For this very
reason, future research should broaden the assessment of temporal
processing, including ecological non-sport related activities, to detect
the far-transfer effect of sport practice benefits to everyday life.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Aglioti, S. M., Cesari, P., Romani, M., & Urgesi, C. (2008). Action anticipation and motor
resonance in elite basketball players. Nature Neuroscience, 11(9), 1109–1116.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2182
Antonietti, A., & Crespi, M. (1995). Analisi di tre questionari per la valutazione della
vividezza dell’immagine mentale. Milano: Department of Psychology, Catholic
University of the Sacred Heart, Technical Report.
Avanzino, L., Bove, M., Pelosin, E., Ogliastro, C., Lagravinese, G., & Martino, D. (2015).
The cerebellum predicts the temporal consequences of observed motor acts. PLoS
One, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116607
Ballester, R., Huertas, F., Yuste, F. J., Llorens, F., & Sanabria, D. (2015). The relationship
between regular sports participation and vigilance in male and female adolescents.
PLoS One, 10(4), Article e0123898. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123898
Behm, D. G., & Carter, T. B. (2020). Effect of exercise-related factors on the perception of
time. Frontiers in Physiology, 11(770). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.00770.
doi:10.25035/ijare.12.01.06.
Bekendam, D. N., Diaz, D. G., & García, D. O. (2019). Analysis of cognitive abilities in
female swimmers. International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, 12(1), 5.
Bove, M., Strassera, L., Faelli, E., Biggio, M., Bisio, A., Avanzino, L., & Ruggeri, P. (2017).
Sensorimotor skills impact on temporal expectation: Evidence from swimmers.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1714. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01714
Brady, F. (1995). Sports skill classification, gender, and perceptual style. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 81(2), 611–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/003151259508100250
Brady, F. (1998). A theoretical and empirical review of the contextual interference effect
and the learning of motor skills. Quest, 50, 266–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00336297.1998.10484285
Brown, S. W. (1997). Attentional resources in timing: Interference effects in concurrent
temporal and nontemporal working memory tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 59,
1118–1140. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205526
Chen, Y. H., & Cesari, P. (2015). Elite athletes refine their internal clocks. Motor Control,
19(1), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1123/mc.2013-0081
9
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 69 (2023) 102500
Chen, Y. H., Pizzolato, F., & Cesari, P. (2014). Time flies when we view a sport action.
Experimental Brain Research, 232(2), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-
3771-2
Di Corrado, D., Guarnera, M., Guerrera, C. S., Maldonato, N. M., Di Nuovo, S.,
Castellano, S., & Coco, M. (2020). Mental imagery skills in competitive young
athletes and non-athletes. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 633. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2020.00633
Di Corrado, D., Guarnera, M., & Quartiroli, A. (2014). Vividness and transformation of
mental images in karate and ballet. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 119(3), 764–773.
https://doi.org/10.2466/22.24.PMS.119c30z6
Di Russo, F., Bultrini, A., Brunelli, S., Delussu, A. S., Polidori, L., Taddei, F.,
Traballesi, M., & Spinelli, D. (2010). Benefits of sports participation for executive
function in disabled athletes. Journal of Neurotrauma, 27(12), 2309–2319. https://
doi.org/10.1089/neu.2010.1501
Fourkas, A. D., Bonavolontà, V., Avenanti, A., & Aglioti, S. M. (2008). Kinesthetic
imagery and tool-specific modulation of corticospinal representations in expert
tennis players. Cerebral Cortex, 18(10), 2382–2390. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/
bhn005
Franklin, D. W., & Wolpert, D. M. (2011). Computational mechanisms of sensorimotor
control. Neuron, 72(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.10.006
Furley, P., & Memmert, D. (2011). Studying cognitive adaptations in the field of sport:
Broad or narrow transfer? A comment on allen, Fioratou, and McGeorge (2011).
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 113(2), 481–488. https://doi.org/10.2466/05.23.
PMS.113.5.481-488
Gibbon, J., Church, R. M., & Meck, W. H. (1984). Scalar timing in memory. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, 423(1), 52–77.
Guillot, A., & Collet, C. (2005). Duration of mentally simulated movement: A review.
Journal of Motor Behavior, 37(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.37.1.10-20
Gu, Q., Zou, L., Loprinzi, P. D., Quan, M., & Huang, T. (2019). Effects of open versus
closed skill exercise on cognitive function: A systematic review. Frontiers in
Psychology, 10, 1707. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01707
Hall, C. R. (2001). Imagery in sport and exercise. Handbook of Sport Psychology, 2,
529–549.
Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K. I., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart:
Exercise effects on brain and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(1), 58–65.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2298
Huijgen, B. C., Leemhuis, S., Kok, N. M., Verburgh, L., Oosterlaan, J., Elferink-
Gemser, M. T., & Visscher, C. (2015). Cognitive functions in elite and sub-elite youth
soccer players aged 13 to 17 years. PLoS One, 10(12), Article e0144580. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144580
Isaac, A. R., & Marks, D. F. (1994). Individual differences in mental imagery experience:
Developmental changes and specialization. British Journal of Psychology, 85(4),
479–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1994.tb02536.x
Isaac, A., Marks, D. F., & Russell, D. G. (1986). An instrument for assessing imagery of
movement: The vividness of movement imagery questionnaire (VMIQ). Journal of
Mental Imagery, 10(4), 23–30.
Janzen, T. B., Thompson, W. F., Ammirante, P., & Ranvaud, R. (2014). Timing skills and
expertise: Discrete and continuous timed movements among musicians and athletes.
Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1482. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01482
Jia, B., Zhang, Z., & Feng, T. (2020). Sports experts’ unique perception of time duration
based on the processing principle of an integrated model of timing. PeerJ, 8, Article
e8707. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8707
Lum, J., Enns, J. T., & Pratt, J. (2002). Visual orienting in college athletes: Explorations
of athlete type and gender. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 73(2), 156–167.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2002.10609004
Matthews, W. J., & Meck, W. H. (2016). Temporal cognition: Connecting subjective time
to perception, attention, and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 142(8), 865–907.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000045
Michon, J. A. (1967). Amp; Instituut voor Zintuigfysiologie RVO-TNO (Soesterberg, Pays-
Bas). Timing in temporal tracking. Soesterberg, The Netherlands. Institute for Perception
RVO-TNO.
Mioni, G., Mattalia, G., & Stablum, F. (2013). Time perception in severe traumatic brain
injury patients: A study comparing different methodologies. Brain and Cognition, 81,
305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.12.005
Mioni, G., Stablum, F., Prunetti, E., & Grondin, S. (2016). Time perception in anxious and
depressed patients: A comparison between time reproduction and time production
tasks. Journal of Affective Disorders, 196, 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jad.2016.02.047
Moratal, C., Lupiáñez, J., Ballester, R., & Huertas, F. (2020). Deliberate soccer practice
modulates attentional functioning in children. Frontiers in Psychology, 761. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00761
Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy—psychophysics software in Python. Journal of
Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jneumeth.2006.11.017
Rammsayer, T. H. (2001). Ageing and temporal processing of durations within the
psychological present. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 549–565.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440125713
Ribeiro, L., Costa, A. M., Louro, H., Sobreiro, P., Esteves, P., & Conceição, A. (2020).
Estimating time-to-contact with temporal occlusion in relay swimming: A pilot
study. European Journal of Sport Science, 20(5), 592–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17461391.2019.1658809
Ross, J. M., & Balasubramaniam, R. (2022). Time perception for musical rhythms:
Sensorimotor perspectives on entrainment, simulation, and prediction. Frontiers in
Integrative Neuroscience, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2022.916220
S. Perrone et al.
Roy, M. M., Christenfeld, N. J., & McKenzie, C. R. (2005). Underestimating the duration
of future events: Memory incorrectly used or memory bias? Psychological Bulletin,
131(5), 738. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.738
Russo, G., Bigliassi, M., Ceciliani, A., & Tessari, A. (2022). Exploring the interplay
between sport modality and cognitive function in open-and closed-skill athletes.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 61, Article 102186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psychsport.2022.102186
Ryan, L. J., & Robey, T. B. (2002). Learning and performance effects of accurate and
erroneous knowledge of results on time perception. Acta Psychologica, 111(1),
83–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(02)00044-6
Scharfen, H. E., & Memmert, D. (2019). Measurement of cognitive functions in experts
and elite athletes: A meta-analytic review. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(5),
843–860. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3526
Stevens, L. T. (1886). On the time-sense. Mind, 11, 393–404.
Tobin, S., Bisson, N., & Grondin, S. (2010). An ecological approach to prospective and
retrospective timing of long durations: A study involving gamers. PLoS One, 5(2),
Article e9271. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009271
Tobin, S., & Grondin, S. (2012). Time perception is enhanced by task duration
knowledge: Evidence from experienced swimmers. Memory & Cognition, 40(8),
1339–1351. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0231-3
Tobin, S., & Grondin, S. (2015). Prior task experience affects temporal prediction and
estimation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 916. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2015.00916
Verburgh, L., Scherder, E. J., Van Lange, P. A., & Oosterlaan, J. (2014). Executive
functioning in highly talented soccer players. PLoS One, 9(3), Article e91254.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091254
Vestberg, T., Gustafson, R., Maurex, L., Ingvar, M., & Petrovic, P. (2012). Executive
functions predict the success of top-soccer players. PLoS One, 7(4), Article e34731.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034731
Voelcker-Rehage, C., & Niemann, C. (2013). Structural and functional brain changes
related to different types of physical activity across the life span. Neuroscience &
10
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 69 (2023) 102500
Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(9), 2268–2295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
neubiorev.2013.01.028
Voss, M. W., Kramer, A. F., Basak, C., Prakash, R. S., & Roberts, B. (2010). Are expert
athletes’ expert’in the cognitive laboratory? A meta-analytic review of cognition and
sport expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 812–826. https://doi.org/
10.1002/acp.1588
Wang, C. H., Chang, C. C., Liang, Y. M., Shih, C. M., Chiu, W. S., Tseng, P., Hung, D. L.,
Ovid, J. L., Tzeng, O. J. L., Muggleton, N. G., & Juan, C. H. (2013). Open vs. closed
skill sports and the modulation of inhibitory control. PLoS One, 8(2), Article e55773.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055773
Wearden, J. H., & Lejeune, H. (2008). Scalar properties in human timing: Conformity and
violations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(4), 569–587. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17470210701282576
Wu, Y., Zeng, Y., Zhang, L., Wang, S., Wang, D., Tan, X., Zhu, X., Zhang, J., & Zhang, J.
(2013). The role of visual perception in action anticipation in basketball athletes.
Neuroscience, 237, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.01.048
Yarrow, K., Brown, P., & Krakauer, J. W. (2009). Inside the brain of an elite athlete: The
neural processes that support high achievement in sports. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 10(8), 585–596. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2672
Zachopoulou, E., Mantis, K., Serbezis, V., Teodosiou, A., & Papadimitriou, K. (2000).
Differentiation of parameters for rhythmic ability among young tennis players,
basketball players and swimmers. European Journal of Physical Education, 5(2),
220–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/1740898000050208
Zakay, D. (1990). The evasive art of subjective time measurement: Some methodological
dilemmas. In R. A. Block (Ed.), Cognitive models of psychological time (pp. 59–84).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Zhang, L. L., Pi, Y. L., Shen, C., Zhu, H., Li, X. P., Ni, Z., Zhang, J., & Wu, Y. (2018).
Expertise-level-dependent functionally plastic changes during motor imagery in
basketball players. Neuroscience, 380, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
neuroscience.2018.03.050