ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2024
Effects of different speed-accuracy instructions on perception in psychology experiments: evidence from event-related potential and oscillation.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2024. 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.
- More caution or more lenient: deciphering the role of negative affect in recognition and inference.Cognitive processing · 2026Article
- Long-term cognitive and autonomic effects of COVID-19 in young adults: a cross-sectional study at 28 months.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In cognitive behavioral experiments, we often asked participants to make judgments within a deadline. However, the most common instruction of "do the task quickly and accurately" does not highlight the importance of the balance between being fast and accurate. Methods: Our research aimed to explore how instructions about speed or accuracy affect perceptual process, focus on event-related potentials (ERPs) and event-related oscillations (EROs) of two brain responses for visual stimuli, known as P1 and N1. Additionally, we compared the conventional analysis approach with principal component analysis (PCA) based methods to analyze P1 and N1 ERP amplitude and ERO power. Results: The results showed that individuals instructed to respond quickly had lower P1 amplitude and alpha ERO than those who prioritized accuracy, using the PCA-based approach. However, these two groups had no differences between groups in the N1 theta band using both methods. The traditional time-frequency analysis method could not detect any ERP or ERO distinctions between groups due to limitations in detecting specific components in time or frequency domains. That means PCA is effective in separating these components. Discussion: Our findings indicate that the instructions given regarding speed and accuracy impact perceptual process of subjects during cognitive behavioral experiments. We suggest that future researchers should choose their instructions carefully, considering the purpose of study.
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.