Time is a crucial dimension of our perceived world (Buhusi & Meck, 2005). There is a vast amount of literature investigating the factors that distort time perception, with a focus on topics such as time management or time perspective taking (Grondin, 2010; Caruso, Gilbert, & Wilson, 2008; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). Such literature aims to discover strategies that can permit us to better manage our temporal behavior.Time perception encompasses different subjective time experiences: (1) interval length (duration) estimation, and (2) subjective passage of time judgments, defined as the perceived speed of time passage (Block, 1990; Wearden, This type of subjective time perception is the most frequently studied in the literature (Block, 1990) and it is defined as the subjective evaluation of duration length. In order to assess this perceptive experience, researchers use methods like verbal estimation, asking the participants to estimate, in minutes or/and seconds the length of a temporal interval (Block, 1990).The influence of various factors on interval length judgments is considered to be contingent upon methodological factors, amongst which the study paradigm is of great importance (Block & Zakay, 1997). A crucial distinction in any study focused on time perception is that between: (1) the retrospective paradigm and (2) the prospective paradigm (Block & Zakay, 1997). Contemporary time researchers are unanimous that confusing these two is fatal to any proper progress in this field (Wearden, 2005).The retrospective paradigm is defined by the fact that study participants are not aware in advance that they will have the task to estimate interval length; they are exposed to specific stimuli or events and then asked to estimate the duration of the time interval that contained those stimuli or events (Block, 1990).The prospective paradigm is defined by the fact that the study participants know in advance that the task will involve estimating. ?