How running tricks your brain into overestimating time

A study published in Scientific Reports has revealed that running alters how we perceive time. Researchers note that the effect is driven by the mental demands of controlling movement, rather than physical exertion.

Human perception of time rarely aligns perfectly with clock time. Everyday experiences, such as waiting in line or enduring a monotonous task, can feel longer than they truly are. Research has shown that physical activity, including cycling, walking, and running, can influence these distortions of time.

However, the underlying mechanism has remained uncertain. Some scientists have argued that physiological changes, such as elevated heart rate or hormone release, are responsible. Others have proposed that cognitive factors, particularly the attentional resources required to manage complex movements, play a more significant role.

Led by Tommaso Bartolini from the Italian Institute of Technology, the research team sought to clarify whether distortions in time perception during running are primarily physiological or cognitive in origin. Running on a treadmill requires careful motor control, which may place additional demands on attention. By comparing running with other conditions that involve less physical effort but still require cognitive resources, the researchers aimed to isolate the source of the effect.

The study involved 22 participants (10 females), with an average age of 26. Each participant was asked to memorize a two‑second visual stimulus (a blue square displayed on a screen) and then judge whether subsequent stimuli lasted the same amount of time. This task was performed under four conditions: standing still (baseline), running on a treadmill at 80 percent of maximum heart rate, walking backwards on the treadmill, or standing still while performing a concurrent visual memory task (dual task).

Heart rate was monitored throughout the running and backward walking sessions to measure physical exertion**, while it was recorded for one minute prior to the baseline and dual task sessions.** The researchers then analyzed the accuracy and precision of participants’ time judgments across conditions.

The results revealed a consistent pattern. In all three experimental conditions (running, walking backwards, and the dual task) participants overestimated the duration of stimuli compared to the baseline. For example, during running, a stimulus lasting approximately 1.8 seconds was perceived as equal to the two‑second reference, representing an overestimation of nearly nine percent. Walking backwards and the dual task produced similar distortions of about seven percent.

Importantly, these distortions did not correlate with changes in heart rate. Although running elevated heart rate substantially more than walking backwards, the magnitude of the time distortion was nearly identical. This strongly suggests that the effect is not driven by physiological exertion but by the cognitive effort required to control movement or divide attention.

Notably, participants’ precision—i.e., the consistency of their judgments—remained stable across conditions. This indicates that while their perception of duration was biased, their ability to reproduce that bias reliably was unaffected.

Bartolini and colleagues concluded, “the results of the current study suggest that we should be very cautious in interpreting perceptual timing biases observed during physical activities as reflecting physiological alterations. The results also encourage the scientific community investigating time perception in ecological sensorimotor contexts to consider the potential confounding role of cognitive factors implicated in the execution of complex motor routines.”

Some limitations are to be noted. For instance, the study focused exclusively on running and visual stimuli, leaving open questions about whether similar effects occur with other activities or sensory modalities.

The study, “The role of physical and cognitive effort on time perception,” was authored by Tommaso Bartolini, Irene Petrizzo, Roberto Arrighi, and Giovanni Anobile.