ArticleFrontiers in neuroergonomics2021
Inattention and Uncertainty in the Predictive Brain.
Article in Frontiers in neuroergonomics, 2021. 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.
- Article
- Egocentric Chunking in the Predictive Brain: A Cognitive Basis of Expert Performance in High-Speed Sports.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Negative effects of inattention on task performance can be seen in many contexts of society and human behavior, such as traffic, work, and sports. In traffic, inattention is one of the most frequently cited causal factors in accidents. In order to identify inattention and mitigate its negative effects, there is a need for quantifying attentional demands of dynamic tasks, with a credible basis in cognitive modeling and neuroscience. Recent developments in cognitive science have led to theories of cognition suggesting that brains are an advanced prediction engine. The function of this prediction engine is to support perception and action by continuously matching incoming sensory input with top-down predictions of the input, generated by hierarchical models of the statistical regularities and causal relationships in the world. Based on the capacity of this predictive processing framework to explain various mental phenomena and neural data, we suggest it also provides a plausible theoretical and neural basis for modeling attentional demand and attentional capacity "in the wild" in terms of uncertainty and prediction error. We outline a predictive processing approach to the study of attentional demand and inattention in driving, based on neurologically-inspired theories of uncertainty processing and experimental research combining brain imaging, visual occlusion and computational modeling. A proper understanding of uncertainty processing would enable comparison of driver's uncertainty to a normative level of appropriate uncertainty, and thereby improve definition and detection of inattentive driving. This is the necessary first step toward applications such as attention monitoring systems for conventional and semi-automated driving.
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.