Relational integration is less accurate and slower than single-relation matching regardless of audience or age¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Participants were less accurate in the Relational (90.3%) than Control (96.3%) condition, F(1,31)=22.98, p<0.001, ηp2=.426. → Dumontheil Iroise 2016 q3 i3 Participants were slower in the Relational (2016 ms) than Control (1473 ms) condition, F(1,31)=210.27, p<0.001, ηp2=.872. → Dumontheil Iroise 2016 (2)

Evidence¶

Dumontheil Iroise 2016¶

Dumontheil Iroise, Wolf Laura K., Blakemore Sarah-Jayne. (2016). Audience effects on the neural correlates of relational reasoning in adolescence. Neuropsychologia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.05.001

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Mixed-design ANOVA on accuracy across the 33 participants showed a main effect of Task with Relational accuracy of 90.3% versus Control 96.3%; no main effect of Audience or Age group on accuracy.

"there was a main effect of Task: participants were less accurate in the Relational (mean accuracy: 90.3%±SE: 1.3) relative to the Control condition (96.3%±0.5; F(1,31)=22.98; p<0.001; ηp2=.426, Fig. 2)"

Dumontheil Iroise 2016 (2)¶

Dumontheil Iroise, Wolf Laura K., Blakemore Sarah-Jayne. (2016). Audience effects on the neural correlates of relational reasoning in adolescence. Neuropsychologia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.05.001

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Mixed-design ANOVA on reaction time across the 33 participants showed a main effect of Task with Relational RT of 2016 ms versus Control 1473 ms; no other significant main effects or interactions for RT (all ps>0.2).

"For the RT data (see Table 1), there was a main effect of Task: participants were slower in the Relational (mean RT: 2016 ms±SE: 41) relative to the Control condition (1473 ms±34; F(1,31)=210.27; p<0.001; ηp2=.872)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The dual-task condition is more difficult than the single-task condition, with a condition-by-modality interaction in reaction time — related
• A peer audience decreases accuracy in the complex relational integration condition in both adolescents and adults — reports the opposite
• Incongruent dot comparison trials are less accurate and slower than congruent trials, consistent with an added inhibition step — related
• Dot Task accuracy decreased from congruent to incongruent to mixed trials, with condition accuracies positively correlated — related
• The study found no evidence of age differences in relational reasoning performance, possibly due to design choices maximising sensitivity to audience effects — related
• Adults show greater left inferior lateral PFC activation than adolescents during relational integration — related
• Children aged 8-12 are disproportionately less accurate than adults on REL-2 problems requiring integration of two relations, but not on REL-1 or REL-0 problems — a narrower finding that bears on this claim