ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
The Effect of Safety Signs on the Monitoring of Conflict and Erroneous Response.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
The safety sign is important in our daily life and workplace to prevent potential safety issues. However, it remains undetermined whether the safety signs would influence the cognitive control ability of the people, which serves to guide the behaviors in a goal-directed manner. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the effect of safety signs on cognitive control by uncovering the behavioral performance and neural manifestations underlying the monitoring of conflict and error. The participants performed a flanker task after watching low- and high-hazard safety signs with the electroencephalogram (EEG) data recorded continually. The behavioral results indicated a classic congruency effect with higher accuracy rate and faster response time under a congruent condition compared to an incongruent condition. However, no hazard effect on behavioral performances was observed. The results of event-related potentials (ERPs) demonstrated a more negative N2 elicited by the incongruent trials and an increased (error-related negativity) ERN difference between the error and correct responses in the high-hazard condition compared to those in the low-hazard condition, implying that the monitoring of the conflict and error were both enhanced after watching the high-hazard safety signs. This study contributes to the understanding of the relationship between safety signs and cognitive control, and further expand the measurements that can be applied to assess the effectiveness of safety signs design.
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.