A Sense of Time Requires a Sense of Space

Our brain may not be able to conceptualize time without a proper understanding of space

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

We often think of the abstract idea of time in the concrete terms of space, saying we are “looking forward to the weekend” or “putting the past behind us.” These adages may be more than just metaphors. A study published in January in Psychological Science suggests that thinking of space may be a necessity to conceptualize time. When people's minds are not able to accurately understand space, researchers found, they have difficulty with time as well.

People with a condition called left hemispatial neglect ignore the left side of space—not remembering the left half of a scene or even not eating off the left half of their plate—after an injury or stroke in their brain's right inferior parietal lobe. In the new study, researchers investigated these patients' understanding of time. Because people who speak languages written left to right, such as English or French, tend to think of timelines with the past to the left and the future to the right, the team focused on how left hemispatial neglect might alter the left side of their mental chronology—that is, their thinking about the past.

Seven French speakers with hemispatial neglect, seven stroke patients without neglect and seven healthy people participated in a simple memory study. They learned facts about a fictional 40-year-old man named David—some of which were true of him 10 years in the past and some of which would be true 10 years in the future. They were then asked to remember as many of the facts as they could and to say whether they were true of David at age 30 or age 50. Sure enough, the people who have hemispatial neglect were worse than the others at remembering facts from the past—but not from the future.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


When patients with this type of brain damage draw a face, says psychologist Lera Boroditsky of the University of California, San Diego, who led the study, they might depict only the right eye and ear, or they might cluster all the face's features on the right side. With memory, she notes, “we see a mix of those: to some extent, people weren't good at remembering things that were associated with the past, and the other error people made was misremembering things that were associated with the past as though they were associated with the future.”

When someone's internal understanding of space is thrown off, it seems, their corresponding ordering of time is disrupted. Boroditsky is planning to repeat the study with Hebrew or Arabic speakers, who read—and plot timelines—from right to left, to see if they neglect the future instead of the past.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe