Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30805704›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2020

Humans derive task expectancies from sub-second and supra-second interval durations.

Stefanie Aufschnaiter, Andrea Kiesel, Roland Thomaschke

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Stefanie AufschnaiterCognition, Action, and Sustainability Unit, Department of Psychology, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Engelbergerstrasse 41, 79085, Freiburg, Germany. stefanie.aufschnaiter@psychologie.uni-freiburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4896-7360
Andrea KieselCognition, Action, and Sustainability Unit, Department of Psychology, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Engelbergerstrasse 41, 79085, Freiburg, Germany.
Roland ThomaschkeCognition, Action, and Sustainability Unit, Department of Psychology, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Engelbergerstrasse 41, 79085, Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft TH 1554/3-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent studies in the field of task switching have shown that humans can base expectancies for tasks on temporal cues. When tasks are predictable based on the duration of the preceding pre-target interval, humans implicitly adapt to this predictability, indicated by better performance in trials with validly compared to invalidly predicted tasks. Yet, it is not clear which internal timing mechanisms are involved. Previous research has suggested that intervals from the sub- and supra-second range are processed by distinct cognitive timing systems. As earlier studies on temporally predictable task switching have used predictive intervals stemming from both ranges, it was not yet clear if the time-based expectancy effect was driven by just one of the two internal timing systems. The present study used clearly sub-second intervals (10 ms and 500 ms) in Experiment 1, while clearly supra-second intervals (1500 ms and 3000 ms) were used in Experiment 2. Substantial adaptation effects were observed in both experiments, showing that sub- as well as supra-second timing systems are involved in time-based expectancies for tasks. The present findings offer important implications for our theoretical understanding of the internal timing mechanisms involved in time-based task expectancy.

Indexed as

AdultAnticipation, PsychologicalCognitionCuesFemaleHumansJudgmentMaleReaction 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.