ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2018
Numerical error monitoring.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychophysical dissection of temporal error monitoring.Cognitive processing · 2026Article
- Asymmetrical monitoring of subjective asynchronies: a metacognitive generalized STEARC effect.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Mice monitor their timing errors.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Increased Functional Connectivity of the Intraparietal Sulcus Underlies the Attenuation of Numerosity Estimations for Self-Generated Words.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021Article
- Temporal error monitoring with directional error magnitude judgements: a robust phenomenon with no effect of being watched.Psychological research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Error monitoring has recently been discovered to have informationally rich foundations in the timing domain. Based on the common properties of magnitude-based representations, we hypothesized that judgments on the direction and the magnitude of errors would also reflect their objective counterparts in the numerosity domain. In two experiments, we presented fast sequences of "beeps" with random interstimulus intervals and asked participants to stop the sequence when they thought the target count (7, 11, or 19) had been reached. Participants then judged how close to the target they stopped the sequence, and whether their response undershot or overshot the target. Individual linear regression fits as well as the linear mixed model with a fixed effect of reproduced numerosity on confidence ratings, and participants as independent random effects on the intercept and the slope, revealed significant positive slopes for all the target numerosities. Our results suggest that humans can keep track of the direction and degree of errors in the estimation of discrete quantities, pointing at a numerical-error-monitoring ability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29980995What 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.