Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41726076›Full record

ArticleJournal of cognition2026

Underlying Sources of Response-Response Contingency Learning.

Klaus Rothermund, Anna Martini, Philipp Sprengholz, Birte Moeller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Klaus RothermundFriedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9350-5272
Anna MartiniFriedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4293-0095
Philipp SprengholzOtto Friedrich University Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9925-1920
Birte MoellerUniversität Trier, Trier, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6179-2214

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We examined contingency learning of response sequences (response-response contingency learning, RR-CL) in a serial reaction time task (SRTT), in which keys were pressed corresponding to the spatial position of dots appearing successively on a screen. First-order contingencies between pairs of successive responses were introduced into the task by biasing the transition probabilities between the spatial positions of subsequently appearing dots, rendering specific response sequences more likely than others. A pre-registered study (n = 40) revealed evidence for robust RR-CL effects, indicated by shorter (longer) response times for responses that were preceded by a likely (unlikely) preceding response. Part of this RR-CL effect was due to episodic retrieval of the most recent response sequence that started with the same response as the current sequence. Yet, a robust genuine RR-CL effect remained after controlling for recency-based episodic retrieval. This residual RR-CL effect was dependent on contingency awareness, with stronger residual RR-CL effects for sequences that were correctly identified as high or low in frequency, indicating that learning of response sequence contingencies partly reflects propositional knowledge. A reliable residual RR-CL effect, however, was obtained also in the absence of contingency awareness, indicating that another part of the learning of response sequence contingencies operates automatically and outside of awareness.

Indexed as

action sequencescontingency awarenessContingency learningepisodic response retrievalhabitsimplicit learninglaw of recencypropositional knowledgeresponse-response bindingserial reaction time task (SRTT)

Identifiers

PMID41726076
PMCPMC12922669

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.