Mobile organisms must be capable of deciding both where and when to move in order to keep up with a changing environment; therefore, a strong sense of time is necessary, otherwise, we would fail in many of our movement goals. Despite this intrinsic link between movement and timing, only recently has research begun to investigate the interaction. Two primary effects that have been observed include: movements biasing time estimates (i.e., affecting accuracy) as well as making time estimates more precise. The goal of this presentation is to review this literature, discuss a Bayesian cue combination framework to explain these effects, and discuss the experiments I have conducted to test the framework. The experiments herein include: a motor timing task comparing the effects of movement vs non-movement with and without feedback (Exp. 1A & 1B), a transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) study on the role of the supplementary motor area (SMA) in transforming temporal information (Exp. 2), and a perceptual timing task investigating the effect of noisy movement on time perception with both visual and auditory modalities (Exp. 3A & 3B). Together, the results of these studies support the Bayesian cue combination framework, in that: movement improves the precision of time perception not only in perceptual timing tasks but also motor timing tasks (Exp. 1A & 1B), stimulating the SMA appears to disrupt the transformation of temporal information (Exp. 2), and when movement becomes unreliable or noisy there is no longer an improvement in precision of time perception (Exp. 3A & 3B). Although there is support for the proposed framework, more studies (i.e., fMRI, TMS, EEG, etc.) need to be conducted in order to better understand where and how this may be instantiated in the brain; however, this work provides a starting point to better understanding the intrinsic connection between time and movement

When listening to music, humans readily perceive and move along with a periodic beat. Critically, perception of a periodic beat is commonly elicited by rhythmic stimuli with physical features arranged in a way that is not strictly periodic. Hence, beat perception must capitalize on mechanisms that transform stimulus features into a temporally recurrent format with emphasized beat periodicity. Here, I will present a line of work that aims to clarify the nature and neural basis of this transformation. In these studies, electrophysiological activity was recorded as participants listened to rhythms known to induce perception of a consistent beat across healthy Western adults. The results show that the human brain selectively emphasizes beat representation when it is not acoustically prominent in the stimulus, and this transformation (i) can be captured non-invasively using surface EEG in adult participants, (ii) is already in place in 5- to 6-month-old infants, and (iii) cannot be fully explained by subcortical auditory nonlinearities. Moreover, as revealed by human intracerebral recordings, a prominent beat representation emerges already in the primary auditory cortex. Finally, electrophysiological recordings from the auditory cortex of a rhesus monkey show a significant enhancement of beat periodicities in this area, similar to humans. Taken together, these findings indicate an early, general auditory cortical stage of processing by which rhythmic inputs are rendered more temporally recurrent than they are in reality. Already present in non-human primates and human infants, this "periodized" default format could then be shaped by higher-level associative sensory-motor areas and guide movement in individuals with strongly coupled auditory and motor systems. Together, this highlights the multiplicity of neural processes supporting coordinated musical behaviors widely observed across human cultures.The experiments herein include: a motor timing task comparing the effects of movement vs non-movement with and without feedback (Exp. 1A & 1B), a transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) study on the role of the supplementary motor area (SMA) in transforming temporal information (Exp. 2), and a perceptual timing task investigating the effect of noisy movement on time perception with both visual and auditory modalities (Exp. 3A & 3B). Together, the results of these studies support the Bayesian cue combination framework, in that: movement improves the precision of time perception not only in perceptual timing tasks but also motor timing tasks (Exp. 1A & 1B), stimulating the SMA appears to disrupt the transformation of temporal information (Exp. 2), and when movement becomes unreliable or noisy there is no longer an improvement in precision of time perception (Exp. 3A & 3B). Although there is support for the proposed framework, more studies (i.e., fMRI, TMS, EEG, etc.) need to be conducted in order to better understand where and how this may be instantiated in the brain; however, this work provides a starting point to better understanding the intrinsic connection between time and movement

We all have a sense of time. Yet it is a particularly intangible sensation. So how is our “sense” of time represented in the brain? Functional neuroimaging studies have consistently identified a network of regions, including Supplementary Motor Area and basal ganglia, that are activated when participants make judgements about the duration of currently unfolding events. In parallel, left parietal cortex and cerebellum are activated when participants predict when future events are likely to occur. These structures are activated by temporal processing even when task goals are purely perceptual. So why should the perception of time be represented in regions of the brain that have more traditionally been implicated in motor function? One possibility is that we learn about time through action. In other words, action could provide the functional scaffolding for learning about time in childhood, explaining why it has come to be represented in motor circuits of the adult brain.

fMRI results have shown that the supplementary motor area (SMA) and the basal ganglia, most often discussed in their roles in generating action, are engaged by beat-based timing even in the absence of movement. Some have argued that the motor system is “recruited” by beat-based timing tasks due to the presence of motor-like timescales, but a deeper understanding of the roles of these motor structures is lacking. Reviewing a body of motor neurophysiology literature and drawing on the “active inference” framework, I argue that we can see the motor and timing functions of these brain areas as examples of dynamic sub-second prediction informed by sensory event timing. I hypothesize that in both cases, sub-second dynamics in SMA predict the progress of a temporal process outside the brain, and direct pathway activation in basal ganglia selects temporal and sensory predictions for the upcoming interval -- the only difference is that in motor processes, these predictions are made manifest through motor effectors. If we can unify our understanding of beat-based timing and motor control, we can draw on the substantial motor neuroscience literature to make conceptual leaps forward in the study of predictive timing and musical rhythm.