ArticlePsychological research2025
The impact of visuomotor skills on two pen-and-paper tests of sustained attention (d2-R, FAIR).
Article in Psychological 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the impact of motor skills on performance in two pen-and-paper tests of selective attention, the d2-R and the FAIR-2. Both tests require a visual search for target stimuli presented in a random order with distractor stimuli. In the d2-R, participants have to mark each target with a short stroke. In the FAIR-2, participants are required to draw a continuous line under each stimulus series that remains below the distractors, whereas targets are marked by drawing an upward spike into the target. The purpose of continuous marking in the FAIR-2 is to make the direction and order of participants' visual search apparent to the experimenter. We tested 120 participants with the d2-R, the FAIR-2, and five subtests (aiming, pegboard, steadiness, tapping, line-tracking) of the MLS, a test battery of fine motor skills. Our results revealed similarities and differences between the motor demands of the two tests. Performance on both tests correlated with tapping (hits) and line-tracking (time). In contrast, only FAIR-2 performance correlated with pegboard (time) and steadiness (errors). Regression analyses showed that MLS performance explained a significant amount of variance in FAIR-2 performance, but not in d2-R performance. When directly compared, the differences in explained variance were not significant, however. Hence, the results suggest that the sum of motor demands in the d2-R and the FAIR-2 are comparable, although there are some differences in specific motor requirements.
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.