ArticleBehavior research methods2026
Support for the coverage EMA: Participants can perceive and report discrete auditory event characteristics over 2 h in a simulated EMA scenario.
Article in Behavior research methods, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) minimizes recall bias common in self-report, but variations like the "coverage model" reintroduce short-term recall, raising concerns about accuracy. This study evaluated the fidelity of ratings of characteristics of a discrete auditory event over a 2-h period, simulating coverage EMA, and examined the influence of objective event characteristics (intensity, duration, temporal location) on these ratings. In a remote experiment, participants (N = 741) watched a 2-h film containing one embedded thunder sound stimulus. A 2 × 2 × 3 between-subjects design manipulated stimulus intensity (high/low), duration (short/long), and temporal location (start/middle/end). Immediately after, participants completed coverage EMA-style ratings of perceived intensity, duration, and location. Participants' ratings generally reflected the manipulated objective characteristics; the main effects of intensity, duration, and location on their corresponding ratings were significant. Evidence supporting cross-characteristic influences were weak/anecdotal, and effect sizes were small. Approximately 25% of participants failed to accurately report the single event's occurrence; accurate detection was predicted by higher intensity, longer duration, and temporal location (p < .01). The results show that coverage EMA reports over a 2-h period can capture basic features of discrete events and demonstrate sensitivity to objective characteristics. They also exhibit certain reporting patterns that suggest potential influences between characteristics, although relatively weak effect sizes. Event detection sensitivity may also vary, particularly for less salient stimuli. These findings highlight the utility of coverage EMA while also emphasizing the need for researchers to consider how these patterns might operate within the context of their specific study goals.
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.