ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2020
A new measure of group decision-making efficiency.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond the algorithm: reframing biomarker-guided antibiotic stewardship with behavioural insights.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2026Article
- Analyzing coordination structures for effective humanitarian relief operations.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Human Performance in Competitive and Collaborative Human-Machine Teams.Topics in cognitive science · 2025Article
- Chinese holistic processing: Evidence from cognitive mental architecture using Systems Factorial Technology.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Article
- ACCORD guideline for reporting consensus-based methods in biomedical research and clinical practice: a study protocol.Research integrity and peer review · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has widely been accepted that aggregating group-level decisions is superior to individual decisions. As compared to individuals, groups tend to show a decision advantage in their response accuracy. However, there has been a lack of research exploring whether group decisions are more efficient than individual decisions with a faster information-processing speed. To investigate the relationship between accuracy and response time (RT) in group decision-making, we applied systems' factorial technology, developed by Townsend and Nozawa (Journal of Mathematical Psychology 39, 321-359, 1995) and regarded as a theory-driven methodology, to study the information-processing properties. More specifically, we measured the workload capacity C
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.