Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36065061›Full record

ArticleNature human behaviour2022

Foundations of intuitive power analyses in children and adults.

Madeline C Pelz, Kelsey R Allen, Joshua B Tenenbaum, Laura E Schulz

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature human behaviour, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Madeline C PelzDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Kelsey R AllenDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Joshua B TenenbaumDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Laura E SchulzDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. lschulz@mit.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2981-8039
Massachusetts Institute of Technology · USMcGovern Institute for Brain Research · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decades of research indicate that some of the epistemic practices that support scientific enquiry emerge as part of intuitive reasoning in early childhood. Here, we ask whether adults and young children can use intuitive statistical reasoning and metacognitive strategies to estimate how much information they might need to solve different discrimination problems, suggesting that they have some of the foundations for 'intuitive power analyses'. Across five experiments, both adults (N = 290) and children (N = 48, 6-8 years) were able to precisely represent the relative difficulty of discriminating populations and recognized that larger samples were required for populations with greater overlap. Participants were sensitive to the cost of sampling, as well as the perceptual nature of the stimuli. These findings indicate that both young children and adults metacognitively represent their own ability to make discriminations even in the absence of data, and can use this to guide efficient and effective exploration.

Indexed as

MetacognitionAdultChildChild, PreschoolHumansProblem Solving

Identifiers

PMID36065061
OpenAlexW4294636823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.