ArticlePsychological research2025
The presence of the reverse distance effect depends on the familiarity of the sequences being processed.
Article in Psychological research, 2025. 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.
- The Reverse Distance Effect in Ordinal Processing of Repeated Item Sequences.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Number order processing is thought to be characterised by a reverse distance effect whereby consecutive sequences (e.g., 1-2-3) are processed faster than non-consecutive sequences (e.g., 1-3-5). However, there is accumulating evidence that the reverse distance effect is not consistently observed. In this context, the present study investigated whether the presence of the reverse distance effect depends on the familiarity of the sequences being processed. Supporting this proposal, Experiment 1 found that the reverse distance effect was only present when the presented consecutive sequences were considerably more familiar than the presented non-consecutive sequences. Additionally, the sequence 1-2-3 has been suggested to play a pivotal role in the presence of the reverse distance effect due to being both the most familiar and fastest processed sequence. However, it is contested whether 1-2-3 is processed fast because it is familiar or simply because it can typically be verified as ordered from only its first two digits. Supporting the familiarity explanation, Experiments 2 and 3 found that 1-2-3 was processed characteristically fast regardless of whether it could be verified from its first two digits. Taken together, these findings suggest that sequence familiarity plays a critical role in the presence or absence of the reverse distance effect.
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.