ArticlePloS one2024
Evaluation of landscape created by erosion control dam using physiological and psychological indicators.
Article in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study demonstrated the effect of differences in the exterior of erosion control dams (ECDs) on humans. We recruited 34 university students. Participants sat 1.4 m away from the display while wearing a device for measuring heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability. They (i) took a rest while viewing a gray screen for one minute; (ii) viewed a randomly displayed image of one of the three ECDs' images for one minute; (iii) filled out questionnaires (using the semantic differential method and a profile of mood states) for five minutes; and (iv) took a rest to wash out residual sensitivity for five minutes. The process was repeated three times with three different ECD images. No significant difference was found between the participants' HRs measured before and while viewing the images of the three ECDs with different exterior materials, although the HRs were significantly reduced when viewing the wood-attached ECD compared with the concrete-exposed ECD. Participants perceived the concrete-exposed and stone-attached ECDs artificially, while they felt the wood-attached ECD naturally. In addition, the vigor score was significantly increased while total mood disturbance was significantly decreased when viewing the wood-attached ECD. However, there were no significant differences in other indicators, and participants' responses to the exteriors of the ECDs were positive overall. Our findings show that people do not physiologically and psychologically perceive ECDs negatively. Therefore, securing stability against sedimentary disasters should be a priority before using the landscape elements of an ECD.
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.