ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Developmental Trajectory of Anticipation: Insights from Sequential Comparative Judgments.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reaction time (RT) is a critical measure of performance, and studying its distribution at the group or individual level provides useful information on the cognitive processes or strategies used to perform a task. In a previous study measuring RT in children and adults asked to compare two successive stimuli (quantities or words), we discovered that the group RT distribution was bimodal, with some subjects responding with a mean RT of around 1100 ms and others with a mean RT of around 500 ms. This bimodal distribution suggested two distinct response strategies, one reactive, the other anticipatory. In the present study, we tested whether subjects' segregation into fast and slow responders (1) extended to other sequential comparative judgments (2) evolved from age 8 to adulthood, (3) could be linked to anticipation as assessed using computer modeling (4) stemmed from individual-specific strategies amenable to instruction. To test the first three predictions, we conducted a distributional and theoretical analysis of the RT of 158 subjects tested earlier using four different sequential comparative judgment tasks (numerosity, phonological, multiplication, subtraction). Group RT distributions were bimodal in all tasks, with the two strategies differing in speed and sometimes accuracy too. The fast strategy, which was rare or absent in 8- to 9-year-olds, steadily increased through childhood. Its frequency in adolescence remained, however, lower than in adulthood. A mixture model confirmed this developmental evolution, while a diffusion model corroborated the idea that the difference between the two strategies concerns anticipatory processes preceding decision processes. To test the fourth prediction, we conducted an online experiment where 236 participants made numerosity comparisons before and after an instruction favoring either reactive or anticipatory responses. The results provide out-of-the-lab evidence of the bimodal RT distribution associated with sequential comparisons and demonstrated that the proportions of fast vs. slow responders can be modulated simply by asking subjects to anticipate or not the future result of the comparison. Although anticipation of the future is as important for cognition as memory of the past, its evolution after the first year of life is much more poorly known. The present study is a step toward meeting this challenge. It also illustrates how analyzing individual RT distributions in addition to group RT distributions and using computational models can improve the assessment of decision making cognitive processes.
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.