Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39717678›Full record

ArticleOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science2024

Learning or Boredom? Task Adaptation Effects in Sentence Processing Experiments.

Jan Chromý, Fabian Tomaschek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science, 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.

Jan ChromýInstitute of Czech Language and Theory of Communication, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6646-8026
Fabian TomaschekUniversity of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2246-663X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Task adaptation, characterized by a progressive increase in speed throughout experimental trials, has been extensively observed across various paradigms. Yet, the underlying mechanisms driving this phenomenon remain unclear. According to the learning-based explanation, participants are implicitly learning, becoming more proficient over time. Conversely, a motivation-based view suggests that participants' drive wanes gradually, prompting quicker pace and reduced task engagement. These explanations offer distinct predictions. The learning-based view anticipates not only accelerated speed but also improved response accuracy. In contrast, the motivation-based view assumes that participants lose their focus, their pace increases, but their response accuracy tends to decline. The present study tests these implications in a series of six self-paced reading experiments investigating the interplay between reaction times, immediate recall, and trial order. Robust learning effects are documented. Participants not only read progressively faster during the experiments, but they also get better in responding. Moreover, an analysis of recall accuracy reveals systematic differences between different types of information, with nouns yielding substantially higher recall accuracy than adjectives. These findings are explained through attentional mechanisms: prolonged processing of specific words correlates with improved recall. Furthermore, the differential recall patterns are modulated by the task's question structure, with adjectives recalled more effectively in experiments with a higher proportion of adjective-targeting questions. This underscores participants' strategic allocation of attention to sentence components deemed crucial for task performance, highlighting the dynamic interplay between learning, motivation, and attentional mechanisms in task adaptation.

Indexed as

comprehensionCzechinformation recallsentence processingtask adaptation

Identifiers

PMID39717678
PMCPMC11666283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.