ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024
Temporal error monitoring: Does agency matter?
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Psychophysical dissection of temporal error monitoring.Cognitive processing · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
39424702What 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.