ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Discrepancies between empirical and theoretical probability in human binary choices within the game of Go.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Magnetic sense-dependent probabilistic decision-making in humans.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To make a decision or determine the order of things, people commonly use binary choices such as tossing a coin, with an assumption that the empirical probability equals to the theoretical probability. However, recent understanding on empirical coin-toss probability is contrasting, i.e., even or uneven by quantic or deterministic mechanism, wherein such discrepancies yet remain to be resolved. Here, we investigated whether the probability of stone selection in the game of Go is equal for both parties across Go games to establish the stone selection as a binary choice model for studying the discrepancy between theoretical and empirical probability. The stone selection process is considered as a sequential strategic interaction similar to other binary choice games such as matching pennies. The large-scale data analyses of professional Go matches (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.