ArticleExperimental brain research2025
On dueling multi-act arithmetic: exploring the dynamics of goal-driven competition on engagement and cognition.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ludic design in mental chronometry seeks to enhance engagement through socio-interactive elements. The present study examined whether a co-actor duel context influences both performance and subjective experience. Participants completed speeded arithmetic at two difficulty levels (easy, hard) under two context conditions (alone, duel) in a mixed within-subject design. Self-reports of engagement, distress, and worry were obtained before and after tasks. In the duel context, participants completed problems more quickly, accompanied by a small rise in errors, which however, remained far below the 10% margin allowed by duel rules, indicating that the increase was not a deliberate sacrifice of accuracy for speed. We interpret the speed-up as improved efficiency with preserved engagement, where the modest error rise reflects the probabilistic cost of reduced checking time rather than relaxed accuracy criteria. Such minor differences are unlikely to be consciously detected and therefore are not introspectable as a performance decline.
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.