Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33831064›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Examining the effect of perceived performance-contingent gains, losses and errors on arithmetic.

Ram Naaman, Liat Goldfarb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. 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

2 authors.

Ram NaamanE.J.S. Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-0389-7709
Liat GoldfarbE.J.S. Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gains and losses have previously been found to differentially modulate Executive Functions and cognitive performance depending on performance contingency. Following recent findings suggesting that random gains and losses modulate arithmetic performance, the current study aimed to investigate the effect of perceived performance-contingent gains and losses on arithmetic performance. In the current study, an arithmetic equation judgment task was administered, with perceived performance-contingent gain, loss, and error feedback presented upon each trial. The results from two experiments suggest that when perceiving gain and loss as performance-contingent, the modulation of arithmetic performance, seen previously under random contingency conditions was entirely eliminated. In addition, another type of feedback was examined in the context of an arithmetic task: post-error adjustments. When performance after error feedback was compared to performance after other aversive performance feedback such as loss signals, only errors, but not other aversive feedback, modulated performance in the subsequent trial. These findings further extend the knowledge regarding the influence of gain and loss situations, as well as errors, on arithmetic performance.

Indexed as

Executive FunctionFeedback, PsychologicalHumansJudgmentMathematicsReward

Identifiers

PMID33831064
PMCPMC8031462

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.