Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29460144›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2020

Negative errors in time reproduction tasks.

Martin Riemer, Thomas Wolbers

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Rapid calibration to dynamic temporal contexts.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Martin RiemerAging and Cognition Research Group, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. martin.riemer@dzne.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6043-4204
Thomas WolbersAging and Cognition Research Group, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2943-8949

Funding

European Social Fonds (ESF) AGETIME
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In time reproduction tasks, the reaction time of motor responses is intrinsically linked to the measure of perceptual timing. Decisions are based on a continuous comparison between elapsed time and a memory trace of the to-be-reproduced interval. Here, we investigate the possibility that negative reproduction errors can be explained by the tendency to prefer earlier over later response times, or whether the whole range of possible response times is shifted. In experiment 1, we directly compared point reproduction (participants indicate the exact time point of equality) and range reproduction (participants bracket an interval containing this time point). In experiment 2, participants indicated, in three separate tasks, the exact time point at which the reproduction phase was equal to the standard duration (point reproduction), the earliest (start reproduction), or the latest moment (stop reproduction) at which the exact time point of equality might have been reached. The results demonstrate that the bias towards earlier responses not only affects reproduction of the exact time point of equality. Rather, even if the decision threshold is changed in favor of late responses, they exhibit a continuous shift towards negative errors that increases with the length of the standard duration. The findings are discussed in the context of the hypothesis that systematic errors in time reproduction tasks reflect a dimension-unspecific tendency towards earlier responses caused by the psychophysical method rather than by a time-specific perceptual distortion.

Indexed as

PsychophysicsAdolescentAdultDecision MakingHumansMaleMemoryReaction TimeTime PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.