Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35994475›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Distributional analyses reveal the individual differences in congruency sequence effect.

Dandan Tang, Xuefei Chen, Hong Li, Yi Lei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

4 authors.

Dandan TangSchool of Teacher Education, Zunyi Normal University & Zunyi Institute of Family Education, Zunyi, Guizhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4664-128X
Xuefei ChenCollege of Teacher Education, Qujing Normal University, Qujing, Yunnan, China.
Hong LiInstitute of Brain and Psychological Sciences, Sichuan Normal University, Chendu, China.
Yi LeiInstitute of Brain and Psychological Sciences, Sichuan Normal University, Chendu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Health StatusIndividualityHumansNormal DistributionReaction TimeStroop Test

Identifiers

PMID35994475
PMCPMC9394795

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.