ArticleScientific reports2025
Older adults do not consistently overestimate their action opportunities across different settings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discordance Between Self-Report and Performance-Based Measures Among At-Risk Older Adults: A Secondary Data Analysis.The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association · 2026Article
- Spectators lead to overconfidence and risk-taking in males in a motor task.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Training effects of affordance judgments in four different settings: towards developing a training battery for affordance judgments.Experimental brain research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Am I still able to climb the ladder? Aging accompanies changes in physical constitution and a higher risk of injuries. At the same time, the judgment of action opportunities needs to be highly adaptive to the given task setting. We examined older adults' (n = 40) judgment tendencies in four different tasks by use of a detection theory approach. The tasks' setting differed in their boundaries' proximity to the actor with either proximal (e.g., judging one's hand fit into an opening) or distal boundaries (e.g., judging the reachability of a distant object). The older participants showed significantly more liberal judgments in tasks with distal boundaries. Body awareness and alertness were associated with the extent of judgment disparity between setting types. Subsequently, we compared a gender- and education-matched subsample of the group (n = 24) to a younger sample (n = 24). Older participants' judgment tendencies were significantly more extreme, with stronger under- or overestimations depending on the type of setting. We discuss potential links between more extreme judgments in older adults and higher reliance on learned patterns. Future research is needed to further unravel these setting-dependent behavioral differences and the factors contributing to more extreme judgment tendencies with growing age.
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.