Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34827419›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2021

Assessment of Motor Planning and Inhibition Performance in Non-Clinical Sample-Reliability and Factor Structure of the Tower of London and Go/No Go Computerized Tasks.

Ernest Tyburski, Magdalena Kerestey, Pavlo Kerestey, Stanisław Radoń, Shane T Mueller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Ernest TyburskiDepartment of Health Psychology, Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, 71-460 Szczecin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-4658-9119
Magdalena KeresteyInstitute of Psychology, University of Szczecin, 71-017 Szczecin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-7395-7730
Pavlo KeresteyThoughtWorks, 10969 Berlin, Germany.
Stanisław RadońDepartment of Social Sciences, Pontifical University of John Paul II, 31-002 Cracow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-3338-7956
Shane T MuellerDepartment of Cognitive and Learning Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7418-4592

Funding

Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Szczecin 504-3000-240-922/2018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In two studies, we examine the test-retest reliability and factor structure of the computerized Tower of London (TOL) and Go/No Go (GNG). Before analyses, raw results of variables that were not normally distributed were transformed. Study 1 examined the reliability of a broad spectrum of indicators (Initial Time Thinking, ITT; Execution Time, ET; Full Time, FT; Extra Moves, EM; No Go Errors, NGE; Reaction Time for Go Responses, RTGR) across an eight-week delay in a sample of 20 young adults. After correction for multiple comparisons and correlations, our results demonstrate that the tasks have ambiguous test-retest reliability coefficients (non-significant

Indexed as

factor structureGo/No Go taskmotor inhibitionmotor planningPsychology Experiment Building Languagetest-retest reliabilityTower of London

Identifiers

PMID34827419
PMCPMC8615804

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.