Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42609239›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cognition2026

Dyadic interaction enhances sensitivity and shifts decision criterion in a change detection task.

Tatsuru Kawachi, Yousuke Kawachi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in 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

2 authors.

Tatsuru KawachiDepartment of Psychology, Graduate School of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
Yousuke KawachiDepartment of Psychology, Graduate School of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Can two-person decision-making change performance in detecting a change in the scene? Observers sometimes fail to detect visual changes that occur during a coincident visual transient or other disruption, a phenomenon known as change blindness. Although change blindness has been extensively studied, relatively little is known about whether collaborative decision-making can reduce such failures. Research on collective decision-making suggests that dyads make more accurate judgments than individuals, and recent findings show that they also adopt a more liberal decision criterion. This study examined whether dyads exhibit differences in sensitivity and decision criteria in a change detection task. Methods: Participants in a dyad judged individually and collectively whether the pair of flickering images contained a change. We also conducted a follow-up independent repeated decision-making experiment, in which individuals responded twice with a period of time between two judgments, to confirm whether the second judgment without social input differed from the first judgment. Results: Results from the dyadic decision-making experiment showed that dyads demonstrated enhanced sensitivity to detect changes and were more likely to respond "change present" than better individuals, suggesting the dyadic decisions were not simply based on the judgment of the more sensitive member. Results from the follow-up experiment supported the effect of dyadic decision-making by indicating no difference in sensitivity and decision criterion between first and second judgments. Discussion: These findings suggest that dyadic decision-making may help reduce the failure of change detection by improving sensitivity and shifting the decision criterion to minimize missed detections.

Indexed as

change detectiondecision criteriondecision-makingdyadsresponse biassensitivitysignal detection theory

Identifiers

PMID42609239
PMCPMC13477956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.