ArticleActa psychologica2025
Risky actions: Why and how to estimate variability in motor performance.
Article in Acta psychologica, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We describe the difficulties of measuring variability in performance, a critical but largely ignored problem in studies of risk perception. The problem seems intractable if a large number of successful and unsuccessful trials are infeasible. We offer a solution based on estimates of task-specific variability pooled across the sample. Using a dataset of adult performance in throwing and walking tasks, we show that mischaracterizing the slope leads to unacceptably large errors in estimates of performance levels that undermine analyses of risk perception. We introduce a "pooled-slope" solution that approximates estimates of individual variability in performance and outperforms arbitrary assumptions about performance variability within and across tasks. We discuss the advantages of objectively measuring performance based on the rate of successful attempts-modeled via psychometric functions-for improving comparisons of risk across participants, tasks, and studies.
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.