% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Riemer:140764,
      author       = {Riemer, Martin and Kubik, Veit and Wolbers, Thomas},
      title        = {{T}he effect of feedback on temporal error monitoring and
                      timing behavior.},
      journal      = {Behavioural brain research},
      volume       = {369},
      issn         = {0166-4328},
      address      = {Amsterdam},
      publisher    = {Elsevier},
      reportid     = {DZNE-2020-07086},
      pages        = {111929},
      year         = {2019},
      abstract     = {Metacognitive processes in human timing behavior are rarely
                      investigated, which stands in sharp contrast to the wide
                      research field of metacognition itself. To date, little is
                      known about the sources and the reliability of information
                      that humans possess to judge their own timing abilities and
                      to monitor errors in time-keeping. Here, we intended to fill
                      this gap by determining the degree to which humans depend on
                      external feedback to adjust their timing behavior and make
                      metacognitive accuracy judgments. Two groups of participants
                      performed a time reproduction task under different feedback
                      conditions. After each trial, participants were informed
                      either about the magnitude and the direction of their timing
                      error (signed feedback group) or about its magnitude alone
                      (absolute feedback group). Reproduction errors were related
                      to retrospective, metacognitive judgments on the overall
                      timing performance. The results indicate that the under
                      reproduction effect occurred, rather independently of the
                      type of feedback; however, signed feedback was essential to
                      reduce the bias in metacognitive judgments on timing
                      accuracy. Without being explicitly informed about the
                      direction of timing errors (whether the reproduction
                      interval was stopped too early or too late), participants
                      significantly overestimated their reproduced durations.
                      These results extend previous reports of metacognitive
                      processes in timing behavior measured on a single-trial
                      basis, and provide new insights into the ability of temporal
                      error monitoring in humans.},
      keywords     = {Adult / Feedback / Female / Healthy Volunteers / Humans /
                      Judgment / Knowledge of Results, Psychological / Male /
                      Metacognition: physiology / Reproducibility of Results /
                      Retrospective Studies / Time / Time Perception: physiology},
      cin          = {AG Wolbers},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-2719)1310002},
      pnm          = {344 - Clinical and Health Care Research (POF3-344)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-344},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:31047923},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.bbr.2019.111929},
      url          = {https://pub.dzne.de/record/140764},
}