ArticleBrain and behavior2018
A sequential trial effect based on the motor interference effect from dangerous objects: An ERP study.
Article in Brain and behavior, 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.
- How does abstract and concrete garbage classification signage influence waste sorting behavior?PeerJ · 2023Article
- A sequential trial effect based on the motor interference effect from dangerous objects: An ERP study.Brain and behavior · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aims to investigate whether processing a prepared response toward a dangerous object in a previous trial influences subsequent trial processing.
methodsThe design manipulated the Go/NoGo factor of the current trial, the target dangerousness of the previous trial and that of the current trial.
resultsIn current Go trials, the behavioral results revealed a classical motor interference effect in trials that were preceded by a safe trial (a longer reaction time (RT) and a larger error rate for the previous safe and current dangerous (sD) condition than for the previous safe and current safe (sS) condition). However, the motor interference effect diminished in trials that were preceded by a dangerous trial (insignificant differences in the mean RTs and error rates between the previous dangerous and current dangerous (dD) condition and the previous dangerous and current safe (dS) condition). The event-related potential (ERP) results identified more positive P2 and parietal P3 amplitudes (indicating attentional resource allocation) for the dD condition than for the dS condition. However, the P2 and parietal P3 amplitudes of the sD condition did not significantly differ from those of the sS condition. DISCUSSIONS: These results support the hypothesis that the avoidance motivation elicited by a dangerous target in a previous trial may indicate a dangerous situation, which leads to recruitment of more attentional resources allocated to the subsequent dangerous trial. Therefore, RTs are improved and errors are reduced in the consecutive dangerous condition, subsequently decreasing the motor interference effect in trials preceded by a dangerous trial compared with trials preceded by a safe trial. However, analysis of current NoGo trials revealed that none of the main effects or interactions reached significance in both the behavioral and ERP results, indicating that the hypothesis holds true only if the prepared response needs to be executed.
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.