ArticleFrontiers in cognition2026
Dyadic interaction enhances sensitivity and shifts decision criterion in a change detection task.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.