Thirdly, as concluded by Block and Zakay [3] following their meta-analysis, prospective estimates were expected to be longer and less variable than retrospective estimates.
Nevertheless, whenever a difference has been found between the two, it has always had the same directional trend: prospective estimates are longer than retrospective ones.
Also, based on Block and Zakay's [3] conclusions, it was expected that prospective estimates would be more precise and less variable than retrospective ones.
For example, Zakay and Block [43], [44] have suggested that prospective estimates rely mainly on attention, while retrospective timing primarily involves a memory-based reconstructive process.
The results of the present study show a somewhat stronger paradigm effect, with prospective estimates being on average 23% higher than retrospective ones, thus confirming the directional effect of the time estimation paradigm on the time ratio.
As discussed earlier, the pattern of results observed in this study is consistent with our predictions to the effect that prospective estimates would be higher than retrospective ones and proportional perceived time would diminish as duration increased.
The results confirm the classical distinction found between these paradigms, with prospective estimates being longer than retrospective ones; however, the difference observed with very long intervals was greater than that usually reported.
This experiment did not incorporate any experimental manipulations (such as different attentional or memory demands) that could explain at a cognitive level the fact that prospective estimates are longer than retrospective ones, as this was not the purpose of the study.
The success rate corresponds to 14 of 36 (39%) and thus appears similar to our prospective estimates of precision (described previously).
Several studies offer retrospective or prospective estimates of the degree of disease incidence that can be linked to obesity, and of the magnitude of associated direct medical costs.
