Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32519927›Full record

ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2020

Temporal-order judgement task suggests chronological action representations in motor experts and non-experts.

Róisín Elaine Harrison, Martin Giesel, Constanze Hesse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Róisín Elaine HarrisonSchool of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Martin GieselSchool of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Constanze HesseSchool of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4395-0781

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motor priming studies have suggested that human movements are mentally represented in the order in which they usually occur (i.e., chronologically). In this study, we investigated whether we could find evidence for these chronological representations using a paradigm which has frequently been employed to reveal biases in the perceived temporal order of events-the temporal-order judgement task. We used scrambled and unscrambled images of early and late movement phases from an everyday action sequence ("stepping") and an expert action sequence ("sprinting") to examine whether participants' mental representations of actions would bias their temporal-order judgements. In addition, we explored whether motor expertise mediated the size of temporal-order judgement biases by comparing the performances of sprinting experts with those of non-experts. For both action types, we found significant temporal-order judgement biases for all participants, indicating that there was a tendency to perceive images of human action sequences in their natural order, independent of motor expertise. Although there was no clear evidence that sprinting experts showed larger biases for sprinting action sequences than non-experts, considering sports expertise in a broader sense provided some tentative evidence for the idea that temporal-order judgement biases may be mediated by more general motor and/or perceptual familiarity with the running action rather than specific motor expertise.

Indexed as

JudgmentPsychomotor PerformanceRunningAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleSportsTime FactorsYoung Adultanticipation of future statesathletic expertiseMovement perceptionpsychophysicstemporal-order judgement

Identifiers

PMID32519927
PMCPMC7583443

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.