ArticleScientific reports2024
Dynamics of task preparation processes revealed by effect course analysis on response times and error rates.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associative and categorical priming in a word-picture paradigm: a diffusion model analysis.Psychological research · 2026Article
- The role of take-over cue informativity in interrupted take-over requests in a semi-automated driving scenario.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Trial-wise awareness ratings do not capture the dynamics of masked priming.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2026Article
- Does preparation generate the cost of task switching? A recipe for a switch cost after cue-only trials.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Grounded cognition and the representation of momentum: abstract concepts modulate mislocalization.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Inhibition of cued but not executed task sets depends on cue-task compatibility and practice.Psychological research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cuing or executing a task impacts processing pathways for task-relevant information. While there is ample evidence that processing associated with task execution changes with practice, such evidence regarding cue-induced task preparation is scarce. Here we explored practice-related changes of processing pathways by task cuing in order to assess the plasticity of task preparation. We first developed and validated a new method for the study of practice-related changes, the effect course analysis. The effect course analysis is a model-free, non-parametric method designed to reveal effect changes within an experimental session on a continuous time scale. Then we applied this method to a new study in which cued task sets were supposed to remain activated during assessment of task-relevant pathways, as potential task execution was postponed at the end of the trial. The results showed that, with little practice, task cuing amplified task-relevant pathways, whereas this effect vanished with practice, suggesting that practice prompts fundamental changes of how task cues are used for task preparation. Hence, if one cannot be certain that cognitive processing is stationary, investigating the time course of experimental effects appears to be crucial to determine how cognitive processing is influenced by practice.
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.