ArticlePsychological research2020
Humans derive task expectancies from sub-second and supra-second interval durations.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating time-based expectancy beyond binary timing scenarios: evidence from a paradigm employing three predictive pre-target intervals.Psychological research · 2022Article
- Time-based task expectancy: perceptual task indicator expectancy or expectancy of post-perceptual task components?Psychological research · 2022Article
- How does positive mood modulate time-based event expectancy?Cognitive processing · 2021Article
- Time-Based Transition Expectancy in Task Switching: Do We Need to Know the Task to Switch to?Journal of cognition · 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
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
30805704What 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.