Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29850924›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2018

Free choice tasks as random generation tasks: an investigation through working memory manipulations.

Christoph Naefgen, Markus Janczyk

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Learning and transfer of response-effect relations.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Christoph NaefgenDepartment of Psychology, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Schleichstraße 4, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. christoph.naefgen@uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5804-1169
Markus JanczykDepartment of Psychology, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Schleichstraße 4, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft JA 2307/1-2Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen (DE) DFG ZUK 63
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Free choice tasks are tasks in which two or more equally valid response options per stimulus exist from which participants can choose. In investigations of the putative difference between self-generated and externally triggered actions, they are often contrasted with forced choice tasks, in which only one response option is considered correct. Usually, responses in free choice tasks are slower when compared with forced choice task responses, which may point to a qualitative difference in response selection. It was, however, also suggested that free choice tasks are in fact random generation tasks. Here, we tested the prediction that in this case, randomness of the free choice responses depends on working memory (WM) load. In Experiment 1, participants were provided with varying levels of external WM support in the form of displayed previous choices. In Experiment 2, WM load was induced via a concurrent n-back task. The data generally confirm the prediction: in Experiment 1, WM support improved both randomness and speed of responses. In Experiment 2, randomness decreased and responses slowed down with increasing WM load. These results suggest that free choice tasks have much in common with random generation tasks.

Indexed as

AdultChoice BehaviorFemaleHumansMaleMemory, Short-TermPattern Recognition, VisualPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeYoung AdultAction selectionForced choiceFree choiceRandom generationWorking memory

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.