ArticlePsychological research2024
Error modulates categorization of subsecond durations in multitasking contexts.
Article in Psychological research, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Monitoring errors consumes limited cognitive resources and can disrupt subsequent task performance in multitasking scenarios. However, there is a dearth of empirical evidence concerning this interference with prospective estimation of time. In this study, we sought to investigate this issue through a serial multitasking experiment, employing a temporal bisection task as the primary task. We introduced two task contexts by implementing two different concurrent tasks. In one context, participants were tasked with discriminating the size difference between two visual items, while in the other context, they were required to judge the temporal order of similar visual items. The primary task remained the same for the entire experiment. Psychophysical metrics, including subjective bias (determined by the bisection point) and temporal sensitivity (measured by the Weber ratio), in addition to reaction time, remained unaltered in the primary task regardless of the perceptual context exerted by the concurrent tasks. However, commission of error in the concurrent tasks (i.e., non-specific errors) led to a right-ward shift in the bisection point, indicating underestimation of time after errors. Applying a drift-diffusion framework for temporal decision making, we observed alterations in the starting point and drift rate parameters, supporting the error-induced underestimation of time. The error-induced effects were all diminished with increasing a delay between the primary and concurrent task, indicating an adaptive response to errors at a trial level. Furthermore, the error-induced shift in the bisection point was diminished in the second half of the experiment, probably because of a decline in error significance and subsequent monitoring response. These findings indicate that non-specific errors impact the prospective estimation of time in multitasking scenarios, yet their effects can be alleviated through both local and global reallocation of cognitive resources from error processing to time processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38492086What 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.