Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36597006›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2024

Assessing partial errors via analog gaming keyboards in response conflict tasks: A proof-of-concept study with the concealed information test.

Dave Koller, Franziska Hofer, Bruno Verschuere

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. 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
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

3 authors.

Dave KollerDepartment of Psychology, University of Zurich, Binzmühlestrasse 14 / Box 22, 8050, Zurich, Switzerland. d.koller@psychologie.uzh.ch.ORCID 0000-0001-5315-8782
Franziska HoferZurich State Police, Airport Division, Research and Development, Zurich, Switzerland.
Bruno VerschuereDepartment of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation 2016-106
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The response time-based Concealed Information Test (RT-CIT) is an established memory detection paradigm. Slower RTs to critical information (called 'probes') compared to control items (called 'irrelevants') reveal recognition. Different lines of research indicate that response conflict is a strong contributor to this RT difference. Previous studies used electromyography (EMG) to measure response conflict, but this requires special equipment and trained examiners. The aim of this study was to explore if response conflict can also be measured with an analog gaming keyboard that is sensitive to minimal finger movements. In a preregistered study, participants completed an autobiographical RT-CIT (n = 35) as well as a cued recognition task (modified Sternberg task; n = 33) for validation purposes. Partial errors, partial button presses of the incorrect response key, were more frequent in trials with response conflict than in trials without conflict. Partial errors were rare (CIT: 2.9%; Sternberg: 1.7% of conflict trials), suggesting analogue keyboards have lower sensitivity than EMG. This is the first evidence that analog keyboards can measure partial errors. Although likely less sensitive than EMG measures, potential benefits of analog keyboards include their accessibility, their compatibility with all tasks that use a standard keyboard, that no physical contact with the participant is needed, and ease of data collection (e.g., allowing for group testing).

Indexed as

DeceptionVideo GamesFingersHumansReaction TimeRecognition, PsychologyAnalog keyboardCITConcealed Information TestDeceptionMemory detectionResponse tendencySternberg task

Identifiers

PMID36597006
PMCPMC10794338

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.