ArticleBrain sciences2022
Doing Experimental Psychological Research from Remote: How Alerting Differently Impacts Online vs. Lab Setting.
Article in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How do voice acoustics affect the perceived trustworthiness of a speaker? A systematic review.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Pooled it
- Attentional load impacts multisensory integration, without leading to spatial processing asymmetries.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Web-based assessment of dual-task costs at different ages: an analysis across cognitive domains.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Faces do not guide attention in an object-based facilitation manner.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Anticipatory Saccades Towards the Future Consequences of One's Actions - an Online Eye Tracking Study.Journal of cognition · 2023Article
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
Due to pandemic-imposed restrictions on lab-based research, we have recently witnessed a flourishing of online studies in experimental psychology, based on the collection of fine behavioral measures such as reaction times (RTs) and accuracy. However, it remains unclear whether participants' alerting levels may have a different impact on behavioral performance in the online vs. lab setting. In this work we administered online and in-lab the dynamic temporal prediction (DTP) task, which requires an implicit modulation of participants' alerting by alternating experimental conditions implying either slower or faster response rates. We then compared data distribution, RTs, accuracy, and time-on-task effects across the adult lifespan between the settings. We replicated online and across the whole age range considered (19-69 y) all the task-specific effects already found in-lab (both in terms of RTs and accuracy) beyond the overall RTs delay typical of the online setting. Moreover, we found an interaction between the setting and task-specific features so that participants showed slower RTs only in experimental conditions implying a less urgent response rate, while no RTs delay and a slight accuracy increase emerged in faster conditions. Thus, the online setting has been shown to be methodologically sound in eliciting comparable effects to those found in-lab. Moreover, behavioral performance seems to be more sensitive to task-induced alerting shifts in the online as compared to the lab setting, leading to either a heightened or reduced efficiency depending on a faster or slower response rate of experimental conditions, respectively.
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.