ArticleiScience2026
Direct comparison of temporal error monitoring in humans and rats.
Article in iScience, 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
Temporal error monitoring sits at the intersection of timing, metacognition, and error monitoring. Through a comparative paradigm, we explored distinctions and parallels between rats and humans. Both species were trained to produce a target interval (2s) by pressing a key and to associate reward size based on error magnitude with the location of one of two cards on a screen (humans) or with reward ports (rats). Results showed that both species could report their temporal errors, with rats displaying higher accuracy. Better representation of rule-based variables increased choice accuracy in both species. When performances were equated for specific task variables, the accuracy difference diminished but remained. Response times, used as a proxy for confidence, reflected confidence more accurately in rats, likely resulting from different exploratory and decisional processes in humans. These findings identify key task variables that support temporal error monitoring, with broader implications for comparative metacognition research.
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.