ArticleExperimental brain research2019
The effects of risk magnitude training on mapping risks on space.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk perception has recently been shown to reveal a mental spatial representation, with people responding faster to low-risk items on the left side, and high-risk items on the right side. Subjective risk perception has a stronger spatial representation than objective risk perception; however, both reveal small effect sizes. With risk magnitude being a new domain within spatial mapping literature, we sought to explore its nuances. Following discussion surrounding the relationship between spatial mapping and level of expertise, this study investigated the effect of training an objective risk magnitude sequence on mental spatial representations. Participants (n = 34) used their left and right hands to indicate whether eight risk stimuli were lower or higher risk than a referent activity, both before and after training. Training involved repetitively learning the objectively correct order of the same eight risk stimuli for approximately 15 min. Pre-training results demonstrated the expected spatial representations. Contrary to our predictions, the spatial representation did not get stronger post-training, but instead disappeared. Previous research has demonstrated a loss of spatial-numerical mappings with increased task load. An increase in post-training reaction times could reflect an increase in task load due to a lack of adequate knowledge of risk stimulus order; thus revealing no mental spatial representation. However, failure to find training effects highlights the flexibility of weaker spatial representations, and supports research demonstrating spatial representation flexibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31444537What 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.