ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2018
Internal control beliefs and reference frame concurrently impact early performance monitoring ERPs.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural and behavioral dynamics of (mis)alignment with AI versus humans in risky decision revision.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2026Article
- Cultural influences on the processing of social comparison feedback signals-an ERP study.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the impact of criterion-based vs. social reference frames on behavioural and neural correlates of performance monitoring while taking individual differences in control beliefs into account. We conducted two experiments administering a time estimation task in which feedback was either delivered pertaining to participants' own performance (nonsocial/criterion-based reference) or to the performance of a reference group of previous participants (social reference). In Experiment 1, 34 male volunteers participated. To test generalizability of the observed results to both sexes/genders, we recruited 36 female volunteers for Experiment 2. P2 and P300 amplitudes were generally larger in social than in nonsocial reference trials in the male participants of Experiment 1. ΔFRN amplitudes were larger for social compared to non-social reference trials in Experiment 1. No effects of reference frame were found in the female sample of Experiment 2. Rather, P2 and ΔFRN effects showed opposing patterns for nonsocial versus social reference frames. However, stronger internal control beliefs were accompanied by larger FRN amplitudes of negative social reference trials in both samples, suggesting generalizable effects independent of sex/gender. Enhanced P2 and ΔFRN amplitudes for social versus nonsocial reference trials suggest enhanced attentional capture and higher saliency of socially framed feedback in male participants only. In both sexes/genders, however, the social reference frame possibly challenges internal control beliefs and by this enhances performance monitoring. Our results demonstrate the complex interplay of trait variables and reference frames during performance monitoring influencing our daily lives-reference frames are omnipresent in education and one's working environment.
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.