ArticlePloS one2022
The impacts of training on change deafness and build-up in a flicker task.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Performance on auditory change detection tasks can be improved by training. We examined the stimulus specificity of these training effects in behavior and ERPs. A flicker change detection task was employed in which spatialized auditory scenes were alternated until a "change" or "same" response was made. For half of the trials, scenes were identical. The other half contained changes in the spatial locations of objects from scene to scene. On Day 1, participants were either trained on this auditory change detection task (trained group), or trained on a non-auditory change detection task (control group). On Day 2, all participants were tested on the flicker task while EEG was recorded. The trained group showed greater change detection accuracy than the control group. They were less biased to respond "same" and showed full generalization of learning from trained to novel auditory objects. ERPs for "change" compared to "same" trials showed more negative going P1, N1, and P2 amplitudes, as well as a larger P3b amplitude. The P3b amplitude also differed between the trained and control group, with larger amplitudes for the trained group. Analysis of ERPs to scenes viewed prior to a decision revealed build-up of a difference between "change" and "same" trials in N1 and P2. Results demonstrate that training has an impact early in the "same" versus "change" decision-making process, and that the flicker paradigm combined with the ERP method can be used to study the build-up of change detection in auditory scenes.
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.