ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Awareness of both global uncertainty and feedback in human time estimation.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 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
Recent behavioral studies have shown that humans possess self-awareness of their individual timing ability in that they can discern the direction of their timing error. However, in these studies which included a single repeat (re-do) trial for each duration, it remains unclear whether the reduction in errors in the re-do trials was due to self-awareness of individual timing ability or because the participants used the feedback from the initial trials to improve on the re-do ones. To investigate this further, we conducted a behavioral study in which subjects were divided into two groups: one in which the "re-do" phase occurred frequently, but not always (80% of trials; called the "high-double" group), and one in which re-do trials were rare (20% of trials; called the "low-double" group). This was done to test the possibility of subjects relying on the re-do trials as a method of improvement. Subjects significantly improved in their performance on re-do trials regardless of whether re-dos were rare or frequent. Further, an unexpected finding was observed, where subjects in the low-double group also overall performed better than those in the high-double group. This finding suggests that subjects, knowing that re-do opportunities were rare, engaged better timing at the outset; yet these subjects still improved on re-do trials, suggesting humans are able to incorporate both global uncertainty and feedback.
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.