Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42639033›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neuroscience2026

Crossing effects in the tactile temporal order judgment task: a meta-analysis.

Nina Schmelter, Benedikt Langenberg, Axel Mayer, Tobias Heed

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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.

Nina SchmelterDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Sports Science, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Benedikt LangenbergDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Axel MayerDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Sports Science, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Tobias HeedDepartment of Psychology, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The tactile temporal order judgment (TOJ) task is widely used in multisensory neuroscience. Participants judge which of two tactile stimuli, one on each hand, came first. A key finding is that TOJ performance declines when the arms are crossed, likely due to interactions among tactile, proprioceptive, and visual information. The TOJ crossing effect has been widely reported. However, studies have used different analysis methods, leaving open the question of whether the choice of method influences the magnitude of the effect. Some studies have also reported that the crossing effect is modulated by moderators such as the availability of visual information, response modality, or speeded-response requirements. Through a systematic, exhaustive literature search, we identified 85 experiments in 51 publications that investigated the TOJ crossing effect, of which 39 experiments from 29 publications reported sufficient information for inclusion in a meta-analysis and aligned with the focus of our study. This analysis estimated the crossing effect's size at approximately 1.45. Checks for potential publication bias indicated that this estimate may be inflated, with a corrected estimate of 0.97 using a regression-based adjustment for small-study effects (Rücker's method) and 1.4 based on p-curve analysis of the reported

Indexed as

meta-analysismultisensoryremappingtactile temporal order judgementtouch

Identifiers

PMID42639033
PMCPMC13500511

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.