ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2025
People display consistent recency and primacy effects in behavior and neural activity across perceptual and value-based judgments.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retrospective judgments require decision-makers to gather information over time and integrate that information into a summary statistic like the average. Many retrospective judgments require putting equal weight on early and late information, in contrast to prospective judgments that involve predicting the future and so rely more on late information. We investigate how people weight information over time when continuously reporting the average stimulus strength in a sequence of displays. We investigate the consistency of these temporal profiles across perceptual and value-based tasks using both behavior and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data. We found that people display remarkably consistent temporal weighting functions across choice domains, with a generally strong recency bias and modest primacy bias. The fMRI data revealed evidence-tracking activity in the cuneus in both tasks and in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the value-based task. Finally, a network of cognitive control regions is more active for people who exhibit a stronger primacy vs. recency bias. Together, our behavioral findings indicate that people consistently overweight recency when evaluating past information, and the neural data suggest that overcoming this tendency may require cognitive control.
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.