Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35581437›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2023

Precise display time measurement in JavaScript for web-based experiments.

Gáspár Lukács, Andreas Gartus

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Gáspár LukácsFaculty of Psychology, Department of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. lkcsgaspar@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9401-4830
Andreas GartusFaculty of Psychology, Department of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9066-1114

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conducting research via the Internet is a formidable and ever-increasingly popular option for behavioral scientists. However, it is widely acknowledged that web-browsers are not optimized for research: In particular, the timing of display changes (e.g., a stimulus appearing on the screen), still leaves room for improvement. So far, the typically recommended best (or least bad) timing method has been a single (RAF) JavaScript function call within which one would give the display command and obtain the time of that display change. In our Study 1, we assessed two alternatives: Calling the RAF twice consecutively, or calling the RAF during a continually ongoing independent loop of recursive RAF calls. While the former has shown little or no improvement as compared to single RAF calls, with the latter we significantly and substantially improved overall precision, and achieved practically faultless precision in most practical cases. Our two basic methods for effecting display changes, plain text change and color filling, proved equally efficient. In Study 2, we reassessed the "RAF loop" timing method with image elements in combination with three different display methods: We found that the precision remained high when using either or changes - while drawing on a element consistently led to comparatively lower precision. We recommend the "RAF loop" display timing method for improved precision in future studies, and or changes when using image stimuli. We publicly share the easy-to-use code for this method, exactly as employed in our studies.

Indexed as

InternetHumansReaction TimeWeb BrowserComputerDisplayJavaScriptMeasurementOnline researchPrecisionTiming

Identifiers

PMID35581437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.