Supplemental Material for Attention Probes May Inflate Real Effects and Create Pseudoeffects: A Rerun and Reassessment of Hemed et al. (2020)\n

The supplementary materials include the following sections:(a) A meta-analysis pooling the contrasts (Context3 VS.Context0) we used throughout the study to test the effect of the accumulation of action-effects on the most recent trials (N-4 through N-2), given the outcome of the last action (i.e., Prior, trial N-1).For experiments that included attention probes, we compared the two modes of analysis.The first was the amended preprocessing implemented in Hemed et al., (2023), where we removed the trials immediately following attention probes.The second mode of analysis did not mitigate the switching costs generated by the attention probes implemented in Hemed et al. ( 2020).(b) Experiments 3-4 consists of the reanalysis of the data from the two experiments in our previous paper (Hemed et al., 2020), (c) Experiment 5 consists of a previously unpublished replication of Experiment 2 in the 2020 paper. Meta-AnalysisBelow we report a meta-analysis on the effects of the contrasts we included in each experiment to examine the dynamic influence of own-action effects on reinforcement, based on data from 1,067 participants who performed the task in the current study and an additional one (Hemed & Eitam, 2025).This was done to enable readers to directly compare the effects of the switch costs generated by the attention probes on the results of the new experiments to the uncorrected results of the experiments that included probes (Experiments 3-5).It also enables readers to directly assess the efficacy of the method used by Hemed et al. (2023) to minimize the influence of switching back from attention probe trials to the task trials by comparing the corrected results of the experiments that included probes to the results of the current studies.