guessing versus choosing an upcoming task
Clicks: 310
ID: 257984
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
310 views
44 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #185 of 1,131 articles by views in accounts of chemical research
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,131 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
We compared the effects of guessing versus choosing an upcoming task. In a task-switching paradigm with four tasks, two groups of participants were asked to either guess or choose which task will be presented next under otherwise identical conditions. The upcoming task corresponded to participants' guesses or choices in 75 % of the trials. However, only participants in the Choosing condition were correctly informed about this, whereas participants in the Guessing condition were told that tasks were determined at random. In the Guessing condition, we replicated previous findings of a pronounced reduction of switch costs in case of incorrect guesses. This switch cost reduction was considerably less pronounced with denied choices in the Choosing condition. We suggest that in the Choosing condition, the signaling of prediction errors associated with denied choices is attenuated because a certain proportion of denied choices is consistent with the overall representation of the situation as conveyed by task instructions. In the Guessing condition, in contrast, the mismatch of guessed and actual task is resolved solely on the level of individual trials by strengthening the representation of the actual task.
| Reference Key |
ekleinsorge2016frontiersguessing
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Thomas eKleinsorge;Juliane eScheil |
| Journal | accounts of chemical research |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00396
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.