ArticleScientific reports2021
A cognitive fingerprint in human random number generation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Randomness as a behavioral marker of attentional control during the attention training technique and its neural correlates.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Deviation from Nash mixed equilibrium in repeated rock-scissors-paper reflect individual traits.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- An improved modeling approach to investigate biases in human random number generation.PloS one · 2025Article
- A comparative evaluation of measures to assess randomness in human-generated sequences.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Article
- Exploring randomness in autism.PeerJ · 2023Article
- Characterizing human random-sequence generation in competitive and non-competitive environments using Lempel-Ziv complexity.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Is the cognitive process of random number generation implemented via person-specific strategies corresponding to highly individual random generation behaviour? We examined random number sequences of 115 healthy participants and developed a method to quantify the similarity between two number sequences on the basis of Damerau and Levenshtein's edit distance. "Same-author" and "different author" sequence pairs could be distinguished (96.5% AUC) based on 300 pseudo-random digits alone. We show that this phenomenon is driven by individual preference and inhibition of patterns and stays constant over a period of 1 week, forming a cognitive fingerprint.
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.