ArticleScientific reports2024
On the nonlinearity of the foreperiod effect.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- What is prepared in temporal preparation? A review and a historical appreciation.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Linear and nonlinear effects of Spatial and Temporal attention: human data and drift diffusion model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Hybrid framework of fatigue: connecting motivational control and computational moderators to gamma oscillations.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One of the frequently employed tasks within the implicit timing paradigm is the foreperiod task. The foreperiod is the time interval spanning from the presentation of a warning signal to the appearance of a target stimulus, during which reaction time trajectory follows time uncertainty. While the typical approach in analyzing foreperiod effects is based on linear approximations, the uncertainty in the estimation of time, expressed by the Weber fraction, implies a nonlinear trend. In the present study, we analyzed the variable foreperiod reaction times from a relatively large sample (n = 109). We found that the linear regression on reaction times and log-transformed reaction times poorly fitted the foreperiod data. However, a nonlinear regression based on an exponential decay function with three distinctive parameters provided the best fit. We discussed the inferential hazards of a simplistic linear approach and demonstrated how a nonlinear formulation can create new opportunities for studies in implicit timing research, which were previously impossible.
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.