SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

State-Dependent Distortions of Short-Range Internal Timing: A Narrative Review Across Stress, Anxiety, Depression, Parkinson's Disease, and Epilepsy.

J Clin Med · 2026-01-16

DOI: 10.3390/jcm15020737PMID: 41598674

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Short-range internal timing supports coordinated movement, attention, and physiological regulation, yet distortions of time experience are frequently reported across clinical and high-arousal states. Patients with anxiety or acute stress often describe an apparent acceleration of time, whereas depressive states are more commonly associated with a slowing of subjective time. Neurological conditions, including Parkinson's disease and epilepsy, further demonstrate alterations in temporal processing that cannot be reduced to a single mechanism. This narrative review synthesizes evidence from experimental timing paradigms, subjective passage-of-time judgments, and chronobiological approaches to examine how internal timing varies across biological states. In this study, we highlight the distinction between experiential time distortion and performance-based interval timing and discuss how task characteristics, arousal level, and neural context contribute to heterogeneous findings. Historical and methodological foundations are reviewed, including early chronobiological work linking subjective time estimation to biological rhythms. The reviewed evidence suggests that many timing distortions observed in stress-related, affective, and neurological conditions reflect state-dependent reconfiguration rather than irreversible dysfunction. Framing timing variability as a potential marker of internal state may help reconcile inconsistent results across paradigms and inform future clinical and translational research on temporal processing.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.