Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40293564›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2025

Asymmetrical monitoring of subjective asynchronies: a metacognitive generalized STEARC effect.

Tutku Öztel, Martin Wiener, Fuat Balcı

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

3 authors.

Tutku ÖztelDepartment of Psychology, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6474-5955
Martin WienerDepartment of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5963-5439
Fuat BalcıDepartment of Psychology, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey. fuat.balci@umanitoba.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3390-9352

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies have demonstrated that human participants can keep track of the magnitude and direction of their trial-to-trial errors in temporal, spatial, and numerical estimates, collectively referred to as "metric error monitoring." These studies investigated metric error monitoring in an explicit timing/counting context. However, many of our judgments may also depend on temporal mismatches between stimuli where the temporal information is not processed explicitly, which eventually brings about the simultaneity perception. We investigated whether participants can monitor errors in their simultaneity perception. We tested participants in temporal orer judgment (TOJ) task, where they judged which of the two consecutive stimuli (one on each side of the screen) appeared first and reported their confidence rating for each TOJ. The results of all four experiments showed that the confidence judgements for correct judgments increased and for incorrect judgments decreased with longer absolute SOA. A more granular analysis showed that participants could only monitor their errors for left-first and bottom-first judgments, which suggests a metacognitive spatial-temporal association of response codes (STEARC) effect.

Indexed as

JudgmentMetacognitionPsychomotor PerformanceSpace PerceptionTime PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40293564
PMCPMC12037655

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.