Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33289575›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. General2021

Action biases perceptual decisions toward expected outcomes.

Daniel Yon, Vanessa Zainzinger, Floris P de Lange, Martin Eimer, Clare Press

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental psychology. General, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07591935 (Artificial Intelligence and Mindfulness Meditation), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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.

NCT07591935 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Artificial Intelligence and Mindfulness Meditation: Innovative Methods to Reduce Stress Amongst Medical School Students

TypeinterventionalSponsorSaint James School of MedicineRan2024 to 2024Enrolled20ConditionsStressArmsMindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Course, Apollo Neuro Wearable
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Daniel YonDepartment of Psychological Sciences.ORCID 0000-0002-5511-3884
Vanessa ZainzingerDepartment of Psychological Sciences.
Floris P de LangeDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behavior.
Martin EimerDepartment of Psychological Sciences.
Clare PressDepartment of Psychological Sciences.ORCID 0000-0002-4777-2249

Funding

Leverhulme TrustWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We predict how our actions will influence the world around us. Prevailing models in the action control literature propose that we use these predictions to suppress or "cancel" perception of expected action outcomes, to highlight more informative surprising events. However, contrasting normative Bayesian models in sensory cognition suggest that we are more, not less, likely to perceive what we expect-given that what we expect is more likely to occur. Here we adjudicated between these models by investigating how expectations influence perceptual decisions about action outcomes in a signal detection paradigm. Across three experiments, participants performed one of two manual actions that were sometimes accompanied by brief presentation of expected or unexpected visual outcomes. Contrary to dominant cancellation models but consistent with Bayesian accounts, we found that observers were biased to report the presence of expected action outcomes. There were no effects of expectation on sensitivity. Computational modeling revealed that the action-induced bias reflected a sensory bias in how evidence was accumulated rather than a baseline shift in decision circuits. Expectation effects remained in Experiments 2 and 3 when orthogonal cues indicated which finger was more likely to be probed (i.e. task-relevant). These biases toward perceiving expected action outcomes are suggestive of a mechanism that would enable generation of largely veridical representations of our actions and their consequences in an inherently uncertain sensory world. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

CuesBayes TheoremBiasHumansUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID33289575
PMCPMC8515773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.