ArticlePloS one2022
Distributional analyses reveal the individual differences in congruency sequence effect.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As a sequential modulation of conflict, congruency sequence effect indexes a conflict-induced performance improvement, which is observed as reduced congruency effects for trials after the incongruent trials than for trials after the congruent trials. Although congruency sequence effect has been investigated widely in healthy humans, the studies of distributional characteristics across prototypical congruency tasks are scarce. To investigate this issue, the present study adopts the between-subjects design to carry out three experiments, where subjects were separately informed to perform the Stroop, word Flanker, and letter Flanker tasks. The results showed that congruency sequence effect occurred in the congruent and incongruent trials in the Stroop and word Flanker tasks, respectively, and absented in the letter Flanker task, which is interpreted as the differences in the nature and difficulty of the tasks. The distributional properties of congruency sequence effect did not significantly differ from the Gaussian distribution in the Stroop and word Flanker tasks, but not in the letter Flanker task, suggesting the inter-individual variability of congruency sequence effect depends on the nature of tasks. Importantly, the delta plot analyses showed pronouncedly increased congruency sequence effect over the slowest percentile bines in both the Stroop and word Flanker tasks, verifying the activation suppression hypothesis. Altogether, the present study enriches the literature on the distributional characteristics of congruency sequence effect.
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.