SynthesisFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Crossing effects in the tactile temporal order judgment task: a meta-analysis.
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.
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
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
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.