# When does the feeling of time passing faster or slower emerge? The role of interoceptive awareness

S. Droit-Volet, Florie Monier, M. Larderet, S. Gil, N.N. Martinelli

► To cite this version:

S. Droit-Volet, Florie Monier, M. Larderet, S. Gil, N.N. Martinelli. When does the feeling of time passing faster or slower emerge? The role of interoceptive awareness. Consciousness and Cognition, 2025, 131, pp.103868. 10.1016/j.concog.2025.103868. hal-05516424

HAL Id: hal-05516424

https://hal.science/hal-05516424v1

Submitted on 18 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
When does the feeling of time passing faster or slower emerge? The role of
interoceptive awareness

Droit-Volet<fnref n="1" />*, S., Monier<fnref n="1" />, F., Larderet, M<fnref n="1" />., Gil<fnref n="2" />, S., & Martinelli<fnref n="1" />*, N. N.

*Corresponding author: Sylvie Droit-Volet, Université Clermont Auvergne, Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive (LAPSCO), CNRS, UMR 6024, 34 avenue Carnot, 63037, Clermont-Ferrand, France. E-mails: sylvie.droit-volet@uca.fr.

# 1. INTRODUCTION

The feeling of how quickly time passes, whether it goes by quickly or slowly corresponds to the judgment of the passage of time (PoT) (Wearden, 2005). This judgment, known for a long time, has sparked a renewed interest among psychologists following their remote surveys on time judgment in people confined during the Covid-19 pandemic(). These surveys revealed a strong feeling of time slowing down during the lockdown. This feeling was mainly linked to boredom caused by a lack of cognitive engagement and depressive emotions(). The question raised in the present study is: when does the feeling of a change in the passage of time arise, and why?

As part of an experimental approach aimed at better understanding PoT judgment, Martinelli and Droit-Volet showed that PoT judgment is a temporal metaphor used to take into account changes in the dynamic of individual internal states in a specific context. When people saw stimuli with positive emotional valence, which increased their emotion of happiness, they reported that time seemed to speed up compared than when they saw negative or neutral stimuli. When they made a cognitive effort to solve a difficulty task, they reported that time passed more quickly than for a less demanding task. These differences in the PoT judgment occurred even when the amount of time (duration) did not change from one stimulus to another, or from a task to another. As Martinelli and Droit-Volet explained, PoT judgment stems from individual's introspective analysis of the self-dynamic which describes a form of elasticity of internal time that contrasts with the invariability of external time as measured by our clock.

Some researchers have suggested that awareness of interoceptive signals plays a key role in time judgments (Craig, 2015; Droit-Volet and Wittmann, 2024; Ogden et al., 2022; Teghil et al., 2020; Wittmann, 2015; Wittmann and Droit-Volet, 2024, 2025). Interoceptive awareness refers to the ability to detect changes in physiological activity associated with actions and emotions (e.g., heart rate, breathing rate). Some studies have shown associations between heart rate and duration estimation (e.g., Arslanova et al., 2023; Khoshnoud et al., 2024; Meissner and Wittmann, 2011; Ogden et al., 2019; Wittmann et al., 2010). However, with regard to PoT judgment, only one study by Ogden et al. (2022) examined the relationship between body signals and changes in the feeling of PoT in participants equipped with ambulatory psychophysiology sensors for 6 hours. In this study, participants reported changes in their PoT judgment with increased sympathetic nervous system activity (e.g.,

<footnote n="1">¹Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Université de Poitiers, CNRS, F-86000 Poitiers, France</footnote>
increased heart rate), but not with the parasympathetic nervous system activity. This suggests that experience of a time speeding up could be linked to the detection of an increase in heart rate, while the experience of time slowing down would not directly result from detection of a decrease in heart rate. This is unlikely although cardiac deceleration and acceleration are not physiologically symmetrical, and there may be asymmetry in the perception of acceleration relative to cardiac deceleration. This question therefore remains open. Nevertheless, the effects observed in Odgen et al.'s (2022) study are particularly small, and interoceptive information are not limited to the heart rate.

Recently, Droit-Volet et al. (2005) observed interindividual differences in PoT judgment as a function of individual levels of interoceptive awareness assessed using the MAIA-2 questionnaire (Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness, Mehling et al., 2012). In their study, participants rated the passage of time at 3 stages of a long 99-second task, consisting of viewing a sequence of images with positive or negative emotional valence. In this condition, regardless of the emotional valence of these images, a general feeling of time slowing down developed among participants during the task. Furthermore, and more interestingly, greater differences in the judgment of PoT between assessment stages were detected in participants who obtained higher scores in interoceptive awareness.

The ability to detect variations in bodily information in emotional contexts could therefore influence PoT judgment. However, to date, no study has sought to determine at what precise moment participants spontaneously detect a change in the speed of the passage of time, and whether its detection is modulated by individual interoceptive awareness abilities. Indeed, studies have always examined participants' PoT judgment for the stimulus, task or activity they had just performed, without seeking to determine when this feeling appeared during that stimulus, task or activity. The aim of our original study was to identify when participants detected a change in the speed of the passage of time, and at what intensity, during the presentation of a long 15-minute video. Two videos were used as the emotional valence could influence the time onset of PoT judgment: one with neutral emotional valence but particularly boring, and the other with positive emotional valence. Participants' task was to press a button, as soon as they perceived a change in the speed of the passage of time, to indicate whether it was an acceleration or a slowing down of time, and to rate its intensity. They could press as often as they wanted during the film as soon as they detected a change in the passage of time. At each PoT judgment, they also answered a short series of questions on their internal states (happiness, sadness, arousal, boredom, attention, temporal expectation). They also completed the MAIA-2 questionnaire at the end of the experimental session.

## 2. METHOD

### 2.1. Participants

They were initially 208 participants, but 30 of them did not complete the experiment. Therefore, the final sample consisted of 176 participants ($M_{age} = 27.40, SD = 5.29$) (90 women, 84 men, and 2 identified as other). Participants were recruited through Prolific, an online recruitment platform (Plan & Schitter, 2018), and received a financial compensation in accordance to Prolific's payment guidelines. All participants
read an informed consent before to voluntary begin the experiment, which was
approved by the research ethics committee of the University Clermont Auvergne (IRB
00011540-2024-07).

## 2.2. Material

LimeSurvey was used to program the experiment, present the videos and record
participants' responses. There were 3 videos of neutral emotional valence and 3
videos of positive emotional valence. Each video was composed of a series of film
extracts taken from the emotional film battery of... The total duration of each video
was 15 minutes.

## 2.3. Procedure

Participants were informed that the aim of this study was to record the exact moment at which they perceived a change in the speed of the passage of time while watching a video. They were instructed to watch the video in its entirely, from beginning to end, as not doing so could skew the scientific results. They were also informed that a few questions will appear at the end of the video. Participants were told that they could press as many times as they wished when they felt a new change in the speed of the passage of time or choose not to press if they did not feel any change.

Participants pressed a button to start the video presentation, which had either a neutral or positive emotional valence (Nneutral = 86; Npositive = 90). In each emotional condition, the video was chosen at random from the three corresponding videos. During the video presentation, participants pressed a button when they felt a change in the speed of the passage of time. After each button press, a short series of 8 questions appeared below the video, which remained visible and audible. It took approximately 10-20 seconds to answer these questions. The first question asked participants to indicate whether they felt that time "speeding up" and "slowing down". Then, they rated the intensity of the speeding up or slowing down of time on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from 1 "strongly disagree" to 9 "strongly agree". After these time-related questions, participants rated their level of happiness, sadness, arousal (stimulated-excited-alert-awake), and boredom using the same 9-point scale. With the same response scale, they also rated how much the video had captured their attention (attention), and whether they were thinking about the end of the video (expectation).

At the end of the video, they completed the French version of the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness questionnaire (MAIA-2) (Mehling et al., 2012; Da Costa Silva et al., 2022) allowing us to assess individuals' abilities of interoceptive awareness, defined as the ability to "identify and discern subtle bodily cues indicating varying functional states of the body and the emotional/physiological states" (Mehling et al., 2012, p. 3). This questionnaire comprises 37-items, organized into 8 sub-dimensions (awareness, α = 0.70; distraction, α = .82; worry, α = .72, attention regulation, α = .82; emotional awareness, α = .82; self-regulation, α = .85; listening to the body, α = .85; trusting, α = .85). Item reliability for each sub-dimension was good (Cronbach's alpha ≥ .70).

## 2.4. Statistical analyses
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS and Jamovi software on three time-
related dependent variables: (1) the time of the first detection of a change in the
speed of the passage of time, (2) the number of detections made during the task, and
(3) the self-reported intensity of the initial perceived change on the 9-point scale.
Since participants rated the intensity of PoT on a Likert scale ranging from "strongly
disagree" to "strongly agree" based on their initial judgment (slowing down vs.
speeding up of time), the responses in the speeding-up direction were reverse-
coded. The linear relationship between detection time and PoT intensity was also
examined after testing for heteroskedasticity using the Breusch-Pagan's test. On
each dependent variable, we performed an ANOVA when the assumption of
homogeneity of variance was met (Leven's test), and non-parametric tests when it
was violated - as it was the case for detection time. In this case, the Kolmogorov
Smirnov test was used for 2-independent samples, the Wilcoxon test for 2-related
samples and Cochran's Q test for k-related samples. Two between-subject factors
were examined: the type of video (neutral vs. positive) and the group of participants
defined according to their initial PoT experience: i.e., those who initially reported a
slowing down of time ("slow group") and those who reported a speeding up ("fast
group"). Indeed, the initial temporal judgment had a strong influence on subsequent
judgments during the task. The sex factor was initially tested but was excluded from
the statistical analyses, as neither a main effect nor interactions involving this factor
was found (all *p* > .05).

After analyzing the three time-related dependent variables, we performed a series of ANOVAs to examine the effect of the “video” and “group” factors on response to scales on internal states associated with the first PoT judgment: happiness, sadness, arousal, boredom, attention, expectation. We then examined the relationship between these scores and the 3 time-related dependent variables (detection time, number of detections, PoT intensity) using a multiple linear regression model. We also analyzed the relationships between the MAIA-2 subscales scores and time variables. Finally, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to identify the bet predictor of PoT judgment.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Passage of time

3.1.1. Detection time

**Table 1** presents the mean and median times required to detect a first change in the passage of time for all participants, as well as in two subgroups: those who perceived a slowing down of time ("slow group") and those who detected a speeding up of time ("fast group"). The percentage of participants in these two groups was very close: 47.2 % and 49.43 %, respectively. Only 0.03 % did not detect any change in the passage of time.

On average, the feeling that time was slowing down or speeding up emerged around to 2 minutes on average. However, there was considerable inter-individual variability: for half of the participants, this feeling appeared between about 1 and 3 minutes and for the other half before 1 minute (i.e., Mdn = 1.27).
More interestingly, a significant difference occurred between the slow group and the fast group, Kolmogorov Smirnov test, Z = 1.53, *p* = .019, with detection time being longer among participants who experienced a slowing down of time than among those who experienced a speeding up of time (M<sub>slow</sub> = 3.17 minutes vs. M<sub>fast</sub> = 1.63 minutes).

In each group, time detection did not vary significantly according to the self-reported intensity of PoT on the 9-point scale (slow group, E= 3896, ES = 9704, 95%CI[-15383; 23175], *t* = 0.40, *p* = .69, Breusch-Pagan test = 0.82, *p* = .37; fast group, E= 4945, ES = 7504, 95%CI[-10000; 19890], *t* = 0.66, *p* = .51, Breusch-Pagan test = 0.66, *p* = .42).

The time to detect a change in the PoT did not also differ significantly between the two types of videos used (neutral vs. positive) (Kolmogorov Smirnov test, Z = 0.993, *p* = .278). The type of video did not influence the number of participants who reported a slowing down or speeding up of time (Neutral video: N<sub>slow group</sub> = 42, N<sub>fast group</sub> = 41; Positive video: N<sub>slow group</sub> = 41, N<sub>fast group</sub> = 47, Chi<sup>2</sup> = 0.14, *p* = 0.71).

<table><caption>Table 1. Mean, Standard Deviation, median, and percentiles of the time required to detect a first change in the passage of time; intensity of slowing down of time (from 1 strongly disagree to 9 strongly agree); number of perceived changes in the passage of time during the 15-minute video; and percentage of participants who experienced a slowing down or speeding up of time at the first detection time.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Detection time<br>Secondes</th><th>Minutes</th><th>intensity</th><th>Number</th><th>Percentage<sup>1</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>All Participants</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>143.00</td><td>2.38</td><td>4.93</td><td>6.45</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td>180.87</td><td>3.01</td><td>2.295</td><td>4.047</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td>76.35</td><td>1.27</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>28.07</td><td>0.47</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>76.35</td><td>1.27</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>75</td><td>156.65</td><td>2.61</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>Participants feeling a slowing down of time</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>190.17</td><td>3.17</td><td>6.64</td><td>5.92</td><td>47.2</td></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td>223.69</td><td>3.73</td><td>1.693</td><td>3.51</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td>89.75</td><td>1.50</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pct 25</td><td>20.80</td><td>0.35</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pct 50</td><td>89.75</td><td>1.50</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pct 75</td><td>303.60</td><td>5.06</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>Participants feeling a speeding up of time</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>98.01</td><td>1.63</td><td>3.32</td><td>7.33</td><td>49.43</td></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td>111.27</td><td>1.85</td><td>1.474</td><td>4.228</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td>70.17</td><td>1.17</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pct 25</td><td>29.17</td><td>0.49</td><td>2</td><td>4.25</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Pct 50</td><td>70.17</td><td>1.17</td><td>3</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Pct 75</td><td>126.31</td><td>2.11</td><td>4</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Participants perceiving no change</td><td>0</td><td>0.03</td></tr></table>

¹ N = 176

### 3.1.2. Number of detections

The ANOVA revealed neither main effect of video, $F(1,167) = 0.73, p = .40$, nor significant interaction involving this factor, $F(1,167) = 0.17, p = .69$. Only the main effect of group reached significance, $F(1,167) = 5.79, p = .017, \eta^2_p = .03$. This indicates that participants who initially experienced a slowing down of time responded less frequently during the video presentation that those who experienced a speeding up of time ($M_{slow} = 5.92$ vs. $M_{fast} = 7.33$). This is logically consistent with their later detection time of a change in PoT (see Table 1).

### 3.1.3. Intensity of the speed of the passage of time for the first judgment.

There was a significant main effect of group, $F(1,167) = 186.16, p < .001, \eta^2_p = .523$. As illustrated Figure 1, the intensity of slowing down of time was higher in the slow group than in the fast group ($M_{slow} = 6.64$ vs. $M_{fast} = 3.32$). The video factor and the interaction involving this factor were not significant ($F(1,167) = 1.20, p = .27$; $F(1,167) = 0.53, p = .49$).

### 3.2. Internal states

Unlike PoT judgments, the type of video used in the present study has a significant effect on happiness, $F(1,167) = 16.31, p < .001, \eta^2_p = .09$, arousal, $F(1,167) = 11.14, p = .001, \eta^2_p = .06$, boredom, $F(1,167) = 8.19, p = .005, \eta^2_p = .05$, and allocated attention, $F(1,167) = 23.80, p < .001, \eta^2_p = .125$ (Figure 2). The type of video used did not influence the level of sadness felt, $F(1,167) = 1.14, p = .29$, and the level of expectation toward the end of the video, $F(1,167) = 1.03, p = .31$. There was no significant video x group interaction (all $p < .05$). In sum, participants reported being happier, more aroused, less bored, and attentional focused with the positive than the neutral video.

In addition, there was a significant effect of group for happiness, $F(1,167) = 15.59, p < .001, \eta^2_p = .09$, arousal, $F(1,167) = 48.43, p < .001, \eta^2_p = .23$, boredom, $F(1,167) = 59.95, p < .001, \eta^2_p = .267$, allocated attention, $F(1,167) = 12.10, p < .001, \eta^2_p = .07$, and expectation, $F(1,167) = 15.05, p < .001, \eta^2_p = .08$, but not for sadness, $F(1,167) = 0.38, p = .98$. The participants who initially reported time acceleration were therefore happier and more aroused than those who reported time deceleration. They also reported paying more attention to the video. In contrast, participants who reported a slowing down of time were more bored and though more about when the video would end (Figure 1).

### 3.3. Relationships between judgment of the passage of time and internal states
A multiple linear regression analysis was performed on each time-related variable with the different self-reported internal state in each group taken separately, i.e., in the participants who reported a slowing down of time (slow group) and those who reported time acceleration (fast group) (Table 2). In the slow group, boredom and arousal were significant predictors of PoT intensity (B = 0.28, ES = 0.128, β = .31, 95%CI[0.022; 0.535], t = 2.17, p = .03; B = -0.299, ES = 0.147, β = -.29, 95%CI[-0.59; -.0005], t = -2.03, p = .046, respectively). In contrast, happiness and sadness were found to be significant predictors of PoT intensity in the fast group (B = -0.29, ES = 0.111, β = -.33, 95%CI[-0.51; -.069], t = -2.67, p = .01; B = -0.22, ES = 0.087, β = -.277, 95%CI[-0.39; -.042], t = -2.47, p = .02, respectively). In the fast group, boredom was not a significant predictor of the PoT intensity, B = .016, ES = 0.086, β = .022, 95%CI[0.154; .187], t = 0.19, p = .85. In each group, the other factors did not reach significance.
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1</figcaption></figure>

There was no emotion-related factor that significantly predicted detection time and number of detections for the two groups taken separately (fast and slow group). Only when all participants (slow and fast groups) were included in the same regression analysis, one factor – the level of boredom felt – emerged as the main predictor of both detection time of a change in the passage of time (B = 14184.71, ES = 6752.255, $β$ = .197, 95%CI[851.54; 27517.88], $t$ = 2.10, $p$ = .037), and its intensity (B = 0.30, ES = 0.076, $β$ = 0.327, 95%CI[0.149; 0.450], $t$ = 3.94, $p$ < .001) (See supplementary material). No factor predicted the number of perceived changes in the passage of time during the video presentation (all $p$ > .05). Therefore, in general, the
more bored participants were, the more they felt that time was passing slowly, and the later they reported this feeling.

<table><caption>Table 2. Multiple linear regression analysis on the intensity of first judgment of the passage of time with the different internal states-related scores as factors, in the group of participants who reported a time speeding up (fast group) and in that who reported a time slowing down (slow group).</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="8">Slow group</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>B</th><th>SE</th><th>Beta</th><th>t</th><th>p</th><th colspan="2">95% CI</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>Lower</th><th>Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Happiness</td><td>-.108</td><td>.159</td><td>-.100</td><td>-.679</td><td>.50</td><td>-.427</td><td>.210</td></tr><tr><td>Sadness</td><td>-.092</td><td>.127</td><td>-.081</td><td>-.725</td><td>.47</td><td>-.347</td><td>.162</td></tr><tr><td>Arousal</td><td>-.299</td><td>.147</td><td>-.293</td><td>-2.03</td><td>.05</td><td>-.594</td><td>-.005</td></tr><tr><td>Boredom</td><td>.278</td><td>.128</td><td>.306</td><td>2.17</td><td>.03</td><td>.022</td><td>.535</td></tr><tr><td>Attention</td><td>.184</td><td>.159</td><td>.170</td><td>1.15</td><td>.25</td><td>-.135</td><td>.502</td></tr><tr><td>Expectation</td><td>.049</td><td>.120</td><td>.056</td><td>.413</td><td>.68</td><td>-.190</td><td>.289</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="8">Fast group</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>B</th><th>SE</th><th>Beta</th><th>t</th><th>p</th><th colspan="2">95% CI</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>Lower</th><th>Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Happiness</td><td>-.290</td><td>.111</td><td>-.330</td><td>-2.62</td><td>.01</td><td>-.510</td><td>-.069</td></tr><tr><td>Sadness</td><td>-.216</td><td>.087</td><td>-.277</td><td>-2.47</td><td>.02</td><td>-.390</td><td>-.042</td></tr><tr><td>Arousal</td><td>-.120</td><td>.087</td><td>-.164</td><td>-1.38</td><td>.17</td><td>-.292</td><td>.053</td></tr><tr><td>Boredom</td><td>.016</td><td>.086</td><td>.022</td><td>0.19</td><td>.85</td><td>-.154</td><td>.187</td></tr><tr><td>Attention</td><td>-.052</td><td>.085</td><td>-.075</td><td>-0.61</td><td>.54</td><td>-.220</td><td>.116</td></tr><tr><td>Expectation</td><td>-.015</td><td>.065</td><td>-.025</td><td>-0.23</td><td>.82</td><td>-.144</td><td>.114</td></tr></tbody></table>

3.4. Relationships between interoceptive awareness and judgment of passage of time.

The multiple linear regression analysis including all participants (slow and fast groups) revealed that the scores on the “interoceptive awareness” subscale of the MAIA-2 questionnaire were significant predictors of 3 time-related variables: Detection time (ms), B = -39815, ES = 20296, β = -0.20, 95%CI[-79897; 266], t = -1.96, p = .05; Number of detections, B = 0.96, ES = 0.45, β = 0.22, 95%CI[0.081; 1.845], t = 2.15, p = .03; Intensity of slowing down of time, B = 0.849, ES = 0.249, β = 0.34, 95%CI[0.357; 1.342], t = 3.41, p < .001) (see Table 3). As illustrated in Figure 2, higher interoceptive awareness was associated with later detection of a change in the passage of time, a greater number of detections, and a stronger feeling of time slowing down.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Table 3. Multiple linear regression on the 3 time-related dependent variables (detection time, number of detections, intensity of judgment of the passage of time) with the scores on the different subscale of the interoceptive awareness questionnaire (MAIA-2) as factors.</caption>

<table><caption>Dependent Variable: Detection time (ms)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">B</th><th rowspan="2">SE</th><th rowspan="2">Beta</th><th rowspan="2">t</th><th rowspan="2">p</th><th colspan="2">95% CI</th></tr><tr><th>Lower</th><th>Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Awareness</td><td>-39815</td><td>20296</td><td>-.20</td><td>-1.96</td><td>.05</td><td>-79897</td><td>266</td></tr><tr><td>Distraction</td><td>19697</td><td>14546</td><td>.11</td><td>1.35</td><td>.18</td><td>-9028</td><td>48423</td></tr><tr><td>Worry</td><td>-7268</td><td>16387</td><td>-.04</td><td>-0.44</td><td>.66</td><td>-39631</td><td>25094</td></tr><tr><td>Attention regulation</td><td>-12639</td><td>22182</td><td>-.06</td><td>-0.57</td><td>.57</td><td>-56445</td><td>31166</td></tr><tr><td>Emotion Awareness</td><td>15224</td><td>18275</td><td>.09</td><td>0.83</td><td>.41</td><td>-20866</td><td>51315</td></tr><tr><td>Self-regulation</td><td>8042</td><td>19025</td><td>.05</td><td>0.42</td><td>.67</td><td>-29528</td><td>45614</td></tr><tr><td>Listening to body</td><td>-2635</td><td>17646</td><td>-.02</td><td>-0.15</td><td>.88</td><td>-37483</td><td>32212</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Dependent Variable: Number of detections</caption><tr><td>Trusting</td><td>16253</td><td>15634</td><td>.10</td><td>1.04</td><td>.30</td><td>-14621</td><td>47127</td></tr></table>

<table><caption>Dependent Variable: Intensity of PoT</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">B</th><th rowspan="2">SE</th><th rowspan="2">Beta</th><th rowspan="2">t</th><th rowspan="2">p</th><th colspan="2">95% CI</th></tr><tr><th>Lower</th><th>Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Awareness</td><td>.963</td><td>.447</td><td>.22</td><td>2.15</td><td>.03</td><td>.081</td><td>1.845</td></tr><tr><td>Distraction</td><td>-.298</td><td>.321</td><td>-.07</td><td>-0.93</td><td>.36</td><td>-.931</td><td>.336</td></tr><tr><td>Worry</td><td>-.036</td><td>.362</td><td>-.01</td><td>-0.10</td><td>.92</td><td>-.751</td><td>.679</td></tr><tr><td>Attention regulation</td><td>.003</td><td>.486</td><td>.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>.99</td><td>-.956</td><td>.962</td></tr><tr><td>Emotion Awareness</td><td>.088</td><td>.406</td><td>.02</td><td>0.22</td><td>.83</td><td>-.714</td><td>.890</td></tr><tr><td>Self-regulation</td><td>-.203</td><td>.415</td><td>-.05</td><td>-0.49</td><td>.63</td><td>-1.022</td><td>.615</td></tr><tr><td>Listening to body</td><td>-.338</td><td>.385</td><td>-.10</td><td>-0.88</td><td>.38</td><td>-1.097</td><td>.421</td></tr><tr><td>Trusting</td><td>-.339</td><td>.343</td><td>-.09</td><td>-0.99</td><td>.33</td><td>-1.016</td><td>.339</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">B</th><th rowspan="2">SE</th><th rowspan="2">Beta</th><th rowspan="2">t</th><th rowspan="2">p</th><th colspan="2">95% CI</th></tr><tr><th>Lower</th><th>Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Awareness</td><td>.849</td><td>.249</td><td>.34</td><td>3.41</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>.357</td><td>1.342</td></tr><tr><td>Distraction</td><td>-.359</td><td>.179</td><td>-.16</td><td>-2.01</td><td>.05</td><td>-.711</td><td>-.006</td></tr><tr><td>Worry</td><td>.227</td><td>.201</td><td>.09</td><td>1.128</td><td>.26</td><td>-.170</td><td>.624</td></tr><tr><td>Attention regulation</td><td>.095</td><td>.272</td><td>.04</td><td>0.35</td><td>.73</td><td>-.443</td><td>.633</td></tr><tr><td>Emotion Awareness</td><td>-.314</td><td>.224</td><td>-.14</td><td>-1.40</td><td>.16</td><td>-.758</td><td>.129</td></tr><tr><td>Self-regulation</td><td>.109</td><td>.233</td><td>.05</td><td>0.47</td><td>.64</td><td>-.352</td><td>.570</td></tr><tr><td>Listening to body</td><td>-.255</td><td>.217</td><td>-.14</td><td>-1.18</td><td>.24</td><td>-.683</td><td>.173</td></tr><tr><td>Trusting</td><td>-.181</td><td>.192</td><td>-.09</td><td>-0.94</td><td>.345</td><td>-.560</td><td>.199</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.5. Best predictors of judgment of the passage of time

For each group taken separately (Table 4), we performed a hierarchical regression analysis on PoT intensity by introducing the significant emotional factor (boredom for the slow group, happiness for the fast group) into the equation (model 1), and then interoceptive awareness factor (model 2). For the group of participants who reported a slowing down of time, interoceptive awareness remained the best predictor of PoT intensity, $B = 0.538$, $ES = 0.20$, $\beta = 0.283$, 95%CI[0.139; 0.937], $t = 2.68$, $p = .009$; while boredom just lost its predictive power, $B = 0.135$, $ES = 0.75$, $\beta = 0.189$, 95%CI[-0.015; 0.284], $t = 1.79$, $p = .077$. For the group of participants who reported a time acceleration, happiness was the only significant factor, $B = -2.97$, $ES = 0.89$, $\beta = -0.34$, 95%CI[-0.474; -0.121], $t = -3.35$, $p = .001$, with interoceptive awareness playing no significant role, $B = 0.160$, $ES = 0.157$, $\beta = 0.103$, 95%CI[-0.152; 0.472], $t = 1.02$, $p = .31$. These factors (awareness, boredom happiness) did not reach the threshold of significance for the other time variables (time detection, number of detections) in these two groups (all $p < .05$).
<table><caption>Table 4. Linear regression on the intensity of the judgment of the passage of time with the boredom or happiness as a main predictor (model 1), for the group of participants who reported a slowing down of time (slow group) and those who reported an acceleration of time, respectively, with the scores of interoceptive awareness added in the equation (model 2)</caption><caption>Slow group</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">B</th><th rowspan="2">SE</th><th rowspan="2">Beta</th><th rowspan="2">t</th><th rowspan="2">p</th><th colspan="2">95% CI</th><th rowspan="2">R<sup>2</sup></th></tr><tr><th>Lower</th><th>Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Model 1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Boredom</td><td>.127</td><td>.078</td><td>.178</td><td>1.630</td><td>.107</td><td>-.028</td><td>.282</td><td>.03</td></tr><tr><td>Model 2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Boredom</td><td>.135</td><td>.075</td><td>.189</td><td>1.790</td><td>.077</td><td>-.015</td><td>.284</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Awareness</td><td>.538</td><td>.200</td><td>.283</td><td>2.683</td><td>.009</td><td>.139</td><td>.937</td><td>.12**</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Fast group</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">B</th><th rowspan="2">SE</th><th rowspan="2">Beta</th><th rowspan="2">t</th><th rowspan="2">p</th><th colspan="2">95% CI</th><th rowspan="2">R<sup>2</sup></th></tr><tr><th>Lower</th><th>Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Model 1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Happiness</td><td>-.301</td><td>.089</td><td>-.343</td><td>3.386</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>-.478</td><td>-.124</td><td>.12**</td></tr><tr><td>Model 2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Happiness</td><td>-.297</td><td>.089</td><td>-.339</td><td>3.345</td><td>.001</td><td>-.474</td><td>-.121</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Awareness</td><td>.160</td><td>.157</td><td>.103</td><td>1.021</td><td>.310</td><td>-.152</td><td>.472</td><td>.13**</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4. DISCUSSION

The present study is the first to experimentally examine when individuals perceive a change in the speed of the passage of time during a task when viewing a video with neutral emotional valence and a video with positive emotional valence. Participants rated the neutral video as more boring and made them think more about the end of the video (expectation) than the positive video, while the positive video was judged as inducing more happiness, a higher level of arousal, and capturing more attention. Nevertheless, in our study, the type of video itself did not have a significant effect on PoT judgment, although our results clearly showed the key role of emotion experienced on PoT judgment (i.e., those reported on internal states scales). The lack of a significant effect of videos on PoT judgment may be related to small emotional differences between videos. It may also be related to the time it took for participants to become aware of a change in PoT judgment, which exceeded 1 minute on average. It is known that the intensity of emotion induced by a video presented in laboratory conditions decreases within a few seconds, giving way to a less intense and more diffuse mood.

Our results showed that the time required for participants to perceive a change in the speed of the passage of time ranged between 1 and 3 minutes on average, although there was a considerable inter-individual variability. This suggests that it probably involves conscious processes in retrospective memory that required time (..). This is
consistent with numerous studies that have identified the period of approximately 1 minute as a critical point in the development of the PoT feeling. Therefore, the PoT judgment that emerges during the presentation of a stimulus, or the completion of a task or activity has nothing to do with all temporal judgments of short durations of a few seconds, including those that require judging the passage of time of short durations. The latter is a simple translation in terms of speed of evaluated duration, while the former stems from self-introspective analysis (...). This is what recent studies in young children demonstrated. They showed that even though young children aged 4-5 years were able of PoT judgment, e.g., stating that time passed more quickly when they were happier, they were unable to establish a logical link between the speed of PoT for a stimulus and its duration j (Martinelli & Droit-Volet, 2023; Droit-Volet et al., ).

However, in our study, a difference in detection time emerged between participants who reported a slowing down of time (slow group) and those who reported a speeding up of time (fast group). Indeed, the detection time was longer (3.14 minutes on average) for the slow group than for the fast group (1 ½ minute on average), although some participant had already reported a change in the first 30 seconds of the video, particularly in the fast group. The results indicated that participants who reported a slowing down of time were more bored and thought more about the end of the video. In contrast, those who reported a speeding up of time were happier, more aroused, and their attention were more distracted from the flow of time being more captivated by the content of the video. However, only the emotion-related factors remained significant predictors of detection time of a first change in the passage and its intensity. Regarding the intensity of first PoT judgment, this factor was boredom in the slow group and happiness in the fast one.

Our regression analysis indicated that individual interoceptive awareness was also a significant predictor of PoT judgment, both for the time taken to detect a change in PoT, its intensity and the number of detections. Indeed, higher scores on the awareness subscale of the MAIA-2 questionnaire were associated with later detection time, more detections during the task, and a stronger sense of time slowing down. These findings add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that POT judgment, at least the slowing of time, was closely related to individuals' abilities to read bodily information (Craig,). Using Minkowski's (1968) terms, Droit-Volet referred to the "self-duration" for this ability to read into the dynamic of internal states, which varies according to context (Droit-Volet & Dambrun...).

However, further hierarchical regression conducted for the slow and fast group taken separately with emotion and interoceptive awareness scores as factors revealed that the interoceptive awareness was the only significant predictor of PoT in the group of participants who reported a slowing down of time. It was even the primary predictor as boredom lost its predictive power. In contrast, in the group of participants stating that time passes quickly, the interoceptive awareness was no longer a valid predictor of PoT judgment. It was only the emotion of happy.

These original findings suggest that even though the speed of PoT is measured using the same scale going from fast to slow or from slow to fast, the feeling of time slowing down and speeding up is based on different mechanisms: on the one hand, boredom with its emotional and cognitive characteristics, and on the other hand,
attention diverted from the flow of time because mind is “light”, happy and busy, not self-centered on oneself (Figure 3). This can be formulated by the model presented in Figure 3, which suggests that two major factors underlies the awareness of a change in the PoT judgment: boredom and attention allocated to flow of time (Lardson..). The first factor is boredom: The greater boredom, the slower time passes. The level of boredom is determined by negative emotion and a decrease in stimulation: the fewer stimulation there are, the stronger the negative emotion, and the greater the boredom. The second factor is attention paid to the flow of time: the less attention we pay to the flow of time, the faster time passes. This factor depends on positive emotion and cognitive load: The happier we are, the more occupied our minds are, and the less attention we pay to the flow of time. In this model, these parameters are organized in the following equation: PoT = Boredom * Attention_Time (1 + Interoceptive awareness), where Boredom = Negative emotion * (1 - Stimulation) and Attention_time flow = 1 - (Cognitive load * Positive emotion). In this case, interoceptive awareness would increase in resonance the effect of these two factors on the feeling of PoT. Indeed, the greater our interoceptive awareness, the more we perceived variations in PoT.

Further studies are needed to better understand the exact role of interoceptive
awareness and at what level it manifests. We could suggest that it does not modulate
the PoT judgment in itself as suggested in our model, but it acts upstream directly on
the two factors, as a coefficient. A higher interoceptive awareness score would lead
to a higher level of boredom. However, this is unlikely, because lower interoceptive
awareness scores are associated with higher level of boredom (Droit-Volet et al.,
2025). A higher interoceptive awareness score could also directly decrease the level
of attention paid to time flow: the higher interoceptive awareness, the less attention is
paid to time. However, our results suggest that participants with higher scores are
better at detecting a slowing down of time. Finally, our model suggests that
 interoceptive awareness plays a direct role in PoT judgment itself by amplifying
differences in PoT rhythm.

The original results of our study allow us to propose a model based on two main
factors underlying changes in PoT (boredom and attention to flow of time depending
on the level of happiness and the degree of mental occupation) and the essential role
of interoceptive awareness. However, the role of interoceptive awareness remains to
be elucidated. In addition, PoT judgment is a complex judgment in which we use the
same metaphor to account for the effects of different contexts on self-dynamics, so
that other factors can be taken into consideration.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3</figcaption></figure>

## 5. REFERENCES

Da Costa Silva, L., Belrose, C., Trousselard, M., Rea, B., Seery, E., Verdonk, C., Duffaud, A. M., & Verdonk, C. (2022). Self-Reported Body Awareness: Validation of the Postural Awareness Scale and the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (Version 2) in a Non-clinical Adult French-Speaking Sample. *Front Psychology, 13:946271*. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.946271. PMID: 35959024; PMCID: PMC9362853.

Mehling, W. E., Price, C., Daubenmier, J. J., Acree, M., Bartmess, E., et al. (2012). The Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA). PLoS ONE 7, 11: e48230. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048230

Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018). *Prolific.ac*—A subject pool for online experiments. *Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance*, 17, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004