Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41041020›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025

Timing precision of the Individual Differences in Dutch Language Skills (IDLaS-NL) test battery.

Janay Monen, Olha Shkaravska, Peter Withers, Johan Weustink, Maarten van den Heuvel, Paul Trilsbeek, Reiner Dirksmeyer, Antje S Meyer, Florian Hintz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Janay MonenPsychology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Olha ShkaravskaPsychology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Peter WithersPsychology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Johan WeustinkPsychology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Maarten van den HeuvelPsychology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Paul TrilsbeekPsychology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Reiner DirksmeyerPsychology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Antje S MeyerPsychology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Florian HintzPsychology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Online experimentation has become an essential tool in cognitive psychology, offering access to diverse participant samples. However, remote testing introduces variability in stimulus presentation and response timing due to differences in participant hardware, browsers, and internet conditions. To ensure the validity of online studies, it is crucial to assess the timing precision of experimental software. The present study evaluates the Individual Differences in Dutch Language Skills (IDLaS-NL) test battery, a collection of online tests designed to measure linguistic experience, domain-general cognitive skills, and linguistic processing. Implemented using Frinex, a programming environment developed at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, IDLaS-NL allows researchers to customize test selections via a web platform. We conducted two studies to assess the timing precision of five chronometric tests within the battery. In Study 1, we evaluated the initial implementation of the tests, analyzing differences between expected and recorded stimulus presentation times, response latencies, and recording delays using the custom-made Web Experiment Analyzer (WEA). The results indicated imprecisions in some measures, particularly for reaction time and audio recording onset. Visual stimulus presentation, on the other hand, was fairly accurate. Study 2 introduced refined timing mechanisms in Frinex, incorporating specialized triggers for stimulus presentation and response registration. These adjustments improved timing precision, especially for speech production tasks. Overall, our findings confirm that Frinex achieves timing precision comparable to other widely used experimental platforms. While some variability in stimulus presentation and response timing is inherent to online testing, the results provide researchers with useful estimates of expected precision levels when using Frinex. This study contributes to the growing body of research on online testing methodologies by offering empirical insights into timing accuracy in web-based experiments.

Indexed as

individual differencesLanguage Skillsonline testingtest batterytiming precision

Identifiers

PMID41041020
PMCPMC12486307

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.