ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2024
Causal learning with delays up to 21 hours.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning about causal relations that change over time: primacy and recency over long timeframes in causal judgments and memory.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- Causal and Chronological Relationships Predict Memory Organization for Nonlinear Narratives.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Considerable delays between causes and effects are commonly found in real life. However, previous studies have only investigated how well people can learn probabilistic relations with delays on the order of seconds. In the current study we tested whether people can learn a cause-effect relation with delays of 0, 3, 9, or 21 hours, and the study lasted 16 days. We found that learning was slowed with longer delays, but by the end of 16 days participants had learned the cause-effect relation in all four conditions, and they had learned the relation about equally well in all four conditions. This suggests that in real-world situations people may still be fairly accurate at inferring cause-effect relations with delays if they have enough experience. We also discuss ways that delays may interact with other real-world factors that could complicate learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37580453What 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.