ArticleFrontiers in psychology2015
The influence of observers' sex on attention-demanding performance depends on performers' sex.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human Cortico-Cerebellar Dynamics During Motor Error Processing After Stroke.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Post-error adjustments depend causally on executive attention: Evidence from an intervention study.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- N-Back Task Training Helps to Improve Post-error Performance.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Slowing after Observed Error Transfers across Tasks.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-error slowing (PES) indicates the slower responses after errors than after correct responses. Prior studies mainly focus on how the observation errors influence one own's performance, there is no study investigating how other's monitoring influence one own's performance. Additionally, the issue that whether social context influences the PES effect differently for females and males is still unclear. To address aforementioned issues, we required the participants to interact with a same-sex or opposite-sex partner to complete a color flanker task together (they sat next to each other, Experiment 1). One was the performer (perform the flanker task), and the other was the observer (monitor the error responses of performer). They alternated their roles in two successive blocks. To further verify the role of the interaction context, a control experiment was conducted in the individual context (Experiment 2). The results revealed that (1) larger PES effect was observed in females than in males in the interaction context; (2) the sex difference of PES effect mainly benefited from the opposite-sex interaction; (3) larger PES effect was observed in the interaction context than in the individual context; (4) females' performance was influenced after an interaction with a same-sex or opposite-sex partner, whereas males' performance was merely influenced after an interaction with an opposite-sex partner. Taken together, these findings may suggest that (1) interaction context modulates the PES effect differently for females and males; (2) females are more susceptible to social information and hence more effective to adjust the post-error behaviors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.