ArticleExperimental brain research2025
The influence of advanced information on co-representation in a shared finger precuing task.
Article in Experimental brain research, 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
Effective joint action relies on co-representation, where individuals integrate each other's tasks to achieve a shared task goal. This study examined how advanced information influences co-representation in a shared 4-choice finger precuing task where participants made discrete keypress responses to visual stimuli appearing at preassigned spatial locations. The five precue types varied in the amount of information about the upcoming stimulus location. In Experiment 1, participants first shared the 4-choice finger precuing task while sitting face-to-face (Joint 4-Choice, J4C), then they completed the entire 4-choice task alone (Solo 4-Choice, S4C). As anticipated, the standard precuing effect (reaction times [RTs] decrease as the amount of advanced information provided by the precue increases) was observed in the S4C task. However, a joint precuing effect was not elicited in the J4C task, suggesting that co-representation did not transpire. In Experiment 2, participants completed a modified solo version of the 4-choice finger precuing task (Solo 2-Choice, S2C), responding to only two of the four stimuli (Go trials) and ignoring the other two (NoGo trials). After completing the S2C task, participants completed the S4C task. The S2C task did not exhibit the standard precuing effect observed in the S4C task. Further analysis revealed that RTs were primarily influenced by the number of stimulus-response alternatives and modulated by the Go/NoGo context. Lastly, in Experiment 3, participants were seated side-by-side to enhance social context and verify that the spatial arrangement in Experiment 1 (face-to-face) did not inadvertently disrupt the social context needed to elicit co-representation. Despite eliminating this potential confounding factor by increasing proximity, no joint precuing effect was elicited. These findings advance our understanding of co-representation by demonstrating that it is not an automatic outcome of shared tasks and requires specific conditions (e.g., simultaneous actions, group-level representations) to manifest.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40601015What 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.