ArticleExperimental brain research2017
Race to accumulate evidence for few and many saccade alternatives: an exception to speed-accuracy trade-off.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Hick's law states that increasing the number of response alternatives increases reaction time. Lawrence and colleagues report an exception to the law, whereby more alternatives lead to shorter saccadic reaction times (SRTs). Usher and McClelland (Psychol Rev 108(3):550-592. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.550 , 2001) predict such an anti-Hick's effect when accuracy is not prioritized in a task, which should result in higher error rates with more response alternatives, and in turn to a shorter right tail of the SRT distribution. In the current study, we aim to replicate the original controversial findings and we compare them to these predictions by examining error rates and SRT distributions. Two experiments were conducted where participants made rapid eye movements to one of few or many alternatives. In Experiment 1, the saccade target was an onset and participants started either with few or many possible target locations and then alternated between conditions. An anti-Hick's effect emerged only when participants had started with a small set-size block. In Experiment 2, placeholders were displayed at the possible target locations and independent groups were used. A reliable anti-Hick's effect in SRTs was observed. However, results did not meet the stated predictions: anticipations and false direction errors were never more frequent when the set size was larger and SRT differences between the two set-size conditions were not more pronounced at the slower end of the distributions. In line with Lawrence and colleagues, we speculate that initial motor preparation, and the subsequent inhibition to counteract a premature response, may induce the anti-Hick's effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27787583What 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.