Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39424702›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024

Temporal error monitoring: Does agency matter?

Tutku Öztel, Fuat Balcı

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tutku ÖztelPsychology Department, Koç University, Rumelifeneri Mahallesi, Rumelifeneri Yolu, 34450, Istanbul, Turkey. toztel17@ku.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6474-5955
Fuat BalcıPsychology Department, Koç University, Rumelifeneri Mahallesi, Rumelifeneri Yolu, 34450, Istanbul, Turkey. fuat.balci@umanitoba.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3390-9352

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Error monitoring is the ability to report one's errors without relying on feedback. Although error monitoring is investigated mostly with choice tasks, recent studies have discovered that participants parametrically also keep track of the magnitude and direction of their temporal, spatial, and numerical judgment errors. We investigated whether temporal error monitoring relies on internal generative processes that lead to the to-be-judged first-order timing performance. We hypothesized that if the endogenous processes underlie temporal error monitoring, one can monitor timing errors in emitted but not observed timing behaviors. We conducted six experiments to test this hypothesis. The first two experiments showed that confidence ratings were negatively related to error magnitude only in emitted behaviors, but error directionality judgments of observed behaviors were more precise. Experiment 3 replicated these effects even after controlling for the motor aspects of first-order timing performance. The last three experiments demonstrated that belief of agency (i.e., believing that the error belongs to the self or someone else) was critical in accounting for the confidence rating effects observed in the first two experiments. The precision of error directionality judgments was higher in the non-agency condition. These results show that confidence is sensitive to belief, and short-long judgment is sensitive to the actual agency of timing behavior (i.e., whether the behavior was emitted by the self or someone else).

Indexed as

JudgmentPsychomotor PerformanceTime PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultAgencyEndogenous informationMetacognitionMetric error monitoringTime perception

Identifiers

PMID39424702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.