ArticleJournal of vision2026
Investigating the effect of response autocorrelation on n-back analyses of serial dependence.
Article in Journal of vision, 2026. 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
Perception and decision-making in the present are not solely driven by the current inputs reaching sensory organs, but are also influenced by previous stimuli and decisions (i.e., task responses). This "serial dependence" effect is not limited to the immediately preceding stimulus or response, but it has been shown to extend several trials back in the past. However, owing to potential correlations across past responses, effects from more remote trials may be inflated, even when assessing the effect of past stimuli. In this work, we assess the potential role of response autocorrelation as a potential source of spurious results. We first show that, in serial dependence models, the effect of responses decays slowly across trials, and that such a slow decay increases the probability of observing spurious effects, even when considering past stimuli. We then provide an analytical tool to contain such spurious results. Finally, we apply our approach to a real dataset from a previous study, showing that the effect from two trials back may indeed be inflated. Our results suggest that serial dependence may be more limited in time than previously thought, and that caution is in order when assessing effects from multiple trials back in the past.
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.