Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36033619›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022

When the Counterpart Chooses the Opposite: The First Mover's Anticipation and Evaluation of the Final Feedback in Gambles.

Jiehui Zheng, Lei Wang, Liang Meng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Jiehui ZhengAlibaba Business School, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China.
Lei WangNeuromanagement Lab, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Liang MengSchool of Business and Management, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This research examines the effect of response (in)consistency on the first mover's anticipation and evaluation of the performance feedback in gambles. In a two-player gambling task, the participant played as the first mover while the confederate served as the second mover, who made their gambles in sequence. A more pronounced feedback-related negativity (FRN) was observed when the first mover noticed that the second mover chose a different option from him/her. An enlarged stimulus-preceding negativity (SPN) was observed when the first mover was anticipating the final feedback in this condition. Interestingly, consistent responses gave rise to a more pronounced FRN difference wave (d-FRN) during the feedback stage. Taken together, these results suggest that response discrepancy would modulate the first mover's anticipation and evaluation of the final feedback in gambles.

Indexed as

anticipationchoice inconsistencyevent-related potentials (ERP)feedback-related negativity (FRN)outcome evaluationsocial informationstimulus-preceding negativity (SPN)

Identifiers

PMID36033619
PMCPMC9400596

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.