There was once a cadence to lived experience, an internal metronome that held days apart like carved stones in a riverbed. Childhood seasons carried weight, years had texture, and a single summer afternoon could feel like a stretch of terrain one could walk across slowly and deliberately. Today, that texture feels thinner. Decades collapse into one another, years seem to vanish without leaving a trace, the present feels strangely unreal, and the future appears less like a horizon than a blur. We speak about time as if it were compressing, accelerating, escaping us.
Yet time itself has not warped. Time is an abstraction; a mental construction imposed on sequences of events. What has changed is the way the brain stitches experience into memory and meaning. The fabric of lived time, woven from novelty, narrative, emotional depth, relationship, and attention, has been reshaped by the conditions of modern life.
To understand why time feels thinner, why memory feels porous, and why entire years seem to dissolve, we must look not at the clock but at the mechanisms of experience itself, at how the mind attends to life, how it encodes what happens, and how it later reconstructs the passage of time.
How the Mind Constructs Time
Research on time perception distinguishes between two different processes. Prospective timing refers to how time feels while it is unfolding, when attention is directed toward duration itself, as when one watches a clock or waits for something to end. Retrospective timing, by contrast, refers to how long a period feels only after it has passed, when the mind reconstructs the interval from memory.
The sense of how long a year or a decade feels in hindsight depends largely on memory density, on how many distinct contextual markers the mind can retrieve from that span. A year filled with variation, emotional contrast, and meaningful change produces a dense memory landscape, rich with landmarks. A year dominated by repetition, monotony, and fragmented attention produces few such markers. When the mind later attempts to reconstruct that interval, it finds little to hold onto, and the span collapses.
This is not a metaphor, but a mechanism. The contextual change and memory density hypotheses, well-established in psychological research, show that retrospective time expands or contracts depending on how much differentiation and variation experience contains. When experience lacks contrast, the past compresses, not because nothing happened, but because too little became memorable.
Why the 21st Century Feels Fast and Flat
From the early 2000s onward, life did not accelerate in any literal sense, but lived experience became increasingly fragmented and less rich in context. Smartphones, constant connectivity, infinite scroll, and habitual multitasking reorganized attention itself. Experience began to fracture into brief, disconnected segments, each too small and too similar to the next to form a coherent narrative.
A single notification is trivial. Thousands of interruptions per day, sustained over years, create a landscape of discontinuity in which attention rarely settles long enough for experience to consolidate into memory. Large portions of life pass through awareness without being deeply encoded. They leave no imprint, no landmark, no residue that memory can later retrieve.
Neuroscience supports this observation. When stimuli are repetitive or low in novelty, the hippocampus, which plays a central role in memory formation, produces weaker episodic traces. When attention is continuously divided, fewer details are stored, emotional modulation is reduced, and memory becomes shallow. The result is that years later, entire periods of life feel as if they vanished, not because they were empty, but because they were insufficiently differentiated to be remembered.
Digital distraction, therefore, does not merely fragment attention. It alters the brain’s ability to situate itself in time.
The Pandemic as a Time Distortion Amplifier
The COVID pandemic intensified these mechanisms dramatically. Prolonged monotony, restricted movement, reduced social interaction, and chronic stress reshaped daily life across the globe. Empirical studies conducted during lockdown consistently showed distortions in time perception, with people reporting that days dragged on endlessly while weeks, months, and even years seemed to disappear in retrospect.
These distortions were not random. They correlated strongly with reduced novelty, disrupted routines, boredom, emotional dysregulation, and diminished social contact. When life loses variation and narrative progression, the mind has little material with which to construct a sense of elapsed time. Routine replaces story, and memory thins accordingly.
The pandemic did not merely interrupt schedules. It revealed, in concentrated form, how dependent our sense of time is on variation, embodiment, and relational texture.
AI, Relationships, and the Flattening of Lived Time
Time perception is not only cognitive. It is relational. Human connection is not simply an exchange of information but a co-creation of experience through embodied presence. Face-to-face interaction engages complex systems of affective attunement, micro expressive synchrony, shared rhythm, and mutual unpredictability. These elements create strong emotional and contextual contrasts, precisely the ingredients that memory requires to encode experience richly.
When artificial agents begin to substitute for human interaction, something subtle but significant shifts. Interactions with AI can feel responsive, emotionally resonant, even immersive, but they do not engage the full-embodied and affective systems activated by human presence. Research in human computer interaction shows that while digital conversational partners can satisfy certain social needs, they reduce emotional variance and unpredictability, leading to shallower memory encoding.
In effect, AI interactions simulate responsiveness while flattening the gradients of experience that make moments distinct. They are optimized for familiarity, comfort, and continuity, not for dissonance, rupture, or mutual vulnerability. Unlike human encounters, which surprise us and require ongoing negotiation of meaning, AI interactions tend toward pattern reinforcement.
This has implications for time. If memory is built from emotionally differentiated episodes, then replacing human relationships with predictable, optimized interactions risks producing experience that feels vivid in the moment but leaves little trace afterward. Time becomes smoother, more navigable, but less textured. Life continues, but fewer moments acquire the density needed to anchor duration in memory.
How Time Can Expand Again
If years feel unreal, it is not because they are shorter, but because they are shallower. Time expands retrospectively when experience acquires shape, contrast, and emotional depth. This does not require constant novelty or frenetic activity. It requires intention.
Depth matters more than quantity. One fully inhabited experience carries more temporal weight than countless distracted ones. Environments that challenge perception, relationships that demand presence, and moments that impose emotional engagement all generate memory anchors. Rituals, transitions, and clear beginnings and endings give experience structure, allowing memory to form chapters rather than blur.
Time cannot be reclaimed through efficiency or speed. It returns when experience becomes differentiable again, when moments are allowed to leave marks.
Time Is Not Lost, Only Unheld
Time does not flow independently of experience. It exists in the way lived moments are shaped into memory. What is remembered feels real. What is forgotten collapses into indistinction.
Years vanish not because reality thins, but because memory fails to thicken experience. When presence deepens, when emotional and relational texture returns, time reappears not as an abstraction, but as something lived, held, and remembered.
Author: Inna Goldina
References
Block, R. A., & Reed, M. A. (1978). Remembered duration. A functional view of time estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Learning and Memory, 4(6), 656–665.
Zakay, D., & Block, R. A. (1996). The role of attention in time estimation processes. In Time, Internal Clocks, and Movement (pp. 143–164). Elsevier.
Block, R. A., Hancock, P. A., & Zakay, D. (2010). How cognitive load affects duration judgments. A meta analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 460–482.
Eichenbaum, H. (2017). Memory. Organization and control. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 19–45.
Bianchi, E. C., & Ordóñez, L. D. (2021). The effect of experiential variety on time perception. Psychological Science, 32(6), 971–983.
Ogden, R. S. (2020). The passage of time during the Covid 19 pandemic. Time & Society, 29(4), 973–990.
Droit Volet, S., Gil, S., Martinelli, N., Andant, N., Clinchamps, M., Parreira, L., Rouffiac, K., Dambrun, M., & Dutheil, F. (2020). Time and Covid 19 stress in the lockdown situation. Time free, dying of boredom and sadness.
Ogden, R. S. (2021). Distortions to the passage of time during England’s second national lockdown. PLoS ONE, 16(9), e0250412.
Neves, B. B., Franz, R., Judges, R., Beermann, C., & Baecker, R. (2018). Can digital technology enhance social connectedness among older adults. A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(6), 1–12.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together. Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books.
Hoffman, G., Ju, W., & Li, X. (2014). Human robot fluency. Toward principles of smooth human robot interaction. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Robot Interaction.
Hasson, U., Ghazanfar, A. A., Galantucci, B., Garrod, S., & Keysers, C. (2012). Brain to brain coupling. A mechanism for creating and sharing a social world. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 114–121.
Montag, C., & Diefenbach, S. (2018). Towards Homo Digitalis. Important research issues for psychology and the neurosciences at the dawn of the Internet of Things and the digital society. Sustainability, 10(2), 415.