ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2021
Implicit learning of temporal behavior in complex dynamic environments.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Statistical learning prioritizes abstract over item-specific representations.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- The influence of emotion on temporal context models.Cognition & emotion · 2025Review
- Spatiotemporal predictions guide attention throughout the adult lifespan.NPJ science of learning · 2024Article
- Gazing into spatiotemporal 'known unknowns': the influence of uncertainty on pupil size and saccadic eye movements.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Goal-Dependent Use of Temporal Regularities to Orient Attention under Spatial and Action Uncertainty.Journal of cognition · 2024Article
- Addendum: Implicit learning of temporal behavior in complex dynamic environments.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2022Article
- Effects of temporally regular versus irregular distractors on goal-directed cognition and behavior.Scientific reports · 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
Humans can automatically detect and learn to exploit repeated aspects (regularities) of the environment. Timing research suggests that such learning is not only used to anticipate what will happen, but also when it will happen. However, in timing experiments, the intervals to be timed are presented in isolation from other stimuli and explicitly cued, contrasting with naturalistic environments in which intervals are embedded in a constant stream of events and individuals are hardly aware of them. It is unclear whether laboratory findings from timing research translate to a more ecologically valid, implicit environment. Here we show in a game-like experiment, specifically designed to measure naturalistic behavior, that participants implicitly use regular intervals to anticipate future events, even when these intervals are constantly interrupted by irregular yet behaviorally relevant events. This finding extends previous research by showing that individuals not only detect such regularities but can also use this knowledge to decide when to act in a complex environment. Furthermore, this finding demonstrates that this type of learning can occur independently from the ordinal sequence of motor actions, which contrasts this work with earlier motor learning studies. Taken together, our results demonstrate that regularities in the time between events are implicitly monitored and used to predict and act on what happens when, thereby showing that laboratory findings from timing research can generalize to naturalistic environments. Additionally, with the development of our game-like experiment, we demonstrate an approach to test cognitive theories in less controlled, ecologically more valid environments.
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.