Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35610412›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022

Timing of internal processes: Investigating introspection about the costs of task switching and memory search.

Daniel Bratzke, Donna Bryce

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Daniel BratzkeDepartment of Psychology, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany. bratzke@uni-bremen.de.
Donna BryceDepartment of Psychology, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft BR 4297/1-2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the last two decades, there has been new interest in introspection about multitasking performance. In this field, subjective timing of one's own reaction times (introspective RTs) has proven a useful measure to assess introspection. However, whether timing our own cognitive processing makes use of the same timing mechanisms as timing external intervals has been called into question. Here we take a novel approach to this question and build on the previously observed dissociation between the interference of task switching and memory search with a concurrent time production task whereby temporal productions increased with increasing memory set size but were not affected by switch costs. We tested whether a similar dissociation could be observed in this paradigm when participants provide introspective RTs instead of concurrent temporal productions. The results showed no such dissociation as switch costs and the effect of memory set size on RTs were both reflected in introspective RTs. These findings indicate that the underlying timing mechanisms differ between temporal productions and introspective RTs in this multitasking context, and that introspective RTs are still strikingly accurate estimates of objective RTs.

Indexed as

Executive FunctionHumansReaction TimeAwarenessIntrospectionMemory searchTask switching

Identifiers

PMID35610412
PMCPMC9232406

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.