Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32346823›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2020

Feature binding contributions to effect monitoring.

Robert Wirth, Wilfried Kunde

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Robert WirthDepartment of Psychology, Julius Maximilians University of Würzburg, Röntgenring 11, 97070, Würzburg, Germany. robert.wirth@uni-wuerzburg.de.
Wilfried KundeDepartment of Psychology, Julius Maximilians University of Würzburg, Röntgenring 11, 97070, Würzburg, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft KU 1964/11-2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monitoring the perceptual effects of body movements is supposed to be a capacity-limited process that can interfere with processing of a concurrent task. Here we studied the contribution of feature binding to such effect monitoring interference. In three experiments, we varied the possibility of feature overlap between responses and effects in a primary task and responses in a secondary task. We show that responses in a secondary task are delayed when they partially, rather than completely, alternate or repeat features of responses/effects of a primary task. Yet, these partial feature repetition/alternation costs are small, and they occur on top of other factors that lengthen the critical effect monitoring process, such as the spatial compatibility of responses and effects in the primary task. The results thus show that feature binding contributes to, but cannot fully account for, delays in a secondary task caused by monitoring effects of a primary task.

Indexed as

Psychomotor PerformanceHumansReaction TimeAction controlAction effectsEffect monitoringIdeomotor theoryPsychological refractory period

Identifiers

PMID32346823
PMCPMC8463377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.