ArticleExperimental brain research2013
To eat or not to eat? Kinematics and muscle activity of reach-to-grasp movements are influenced by the action goal, but observers do not detect these differences.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reading out bodily cues to predict interactions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- People can reliably detect action changes and goal changes during naturalistic perception.Memory & cognition · 2024Article
- Contextual Priors Shape Action Understanding before and beyond the Unfolding of Movement Kinematics.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Humanoid facial expressions as a tool to study human behaviour.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The visual encoding of graspable unfamiliar objects.Psychological research · 2023Article
- Rapid assessment of hand reaching using virtual reality and application in cerebellar stroke.PloS one · 2022Article
- Hazardous tools: the emergence of reasoning in human tool use.Psychological research · 2021Article
- Adults Do Not Distinguish Action Intentions Based on Movement Kinematics Presented in Naturalistic Settings.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- The communicative advantage: how kinematic signaling supports semantic comprehension.Psychological research · 2020Article
- The combined effects of motor and social goals on the kinematics of object-directed motor action.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Observer-Agent Kinematic Similarity Facilitates Action Intention Decoding.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- On the Temporal Dynamics of Tool Use.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Article
- The left cerebral hemisphere may be dominant for the control of bimanual symmetric reach-to-grasp movements.Experimental brain research · 2019Article
- Cortical signatures of vicarious tactile experience in four-month-old infants.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2019Article
- Low or High-Level Motor Coding? The Role of Stimulus Complexity.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2019Review
- Aim and Plausibility of Action Chains Remap Peripersonal Space.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
- Movement kinematics drive chain selection toward intention detection.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
- Timing of grip and goal activation during action perception: a priming study.Experimental brain research · 2018Article
- Action Observation Areas Represent Intentions From Subtle Kinematic Features.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2018Article
- Kinematics of ventrally mediated grasp-to-eat actions: right-hand advantage is dependent on dorsal stream input.Experimental brain research · 2018Article
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
Recent evidence suggests that the mirror neuron system responds to the goals of actions, even when the end of the movement is hidden from view. To investigate whether this predictive ability might be based on the detection of early differences between actions with different outcomes, we used electromyography (EMG) and motion tracking to assess whether two actions with different goals (grasp to eat and grasp to place) differed from each other in their initial reaching phases. In a second experiment, we then tested whether observers could detect early differences and predict the outcome of these movements, based on seeing only part of the actions. Experiment 1 revealed early kinematic differences between the two movements, with grasp-to-eat movements characterised by an earlier peak acceleration, and different grasp position, compared to grasp-to-place movements. There were also significant differences in forearm muscle activity in the reaching phase of the two actions. The behavioural data arising from Experiments 2a and 2b indicated that observers are not able to predict whether an object is going to be brought to the mouth or placed until after the grasp has been completed. This suggests that the early kinematic differences are either not visible to observers, or that they are not used to predict the end-goals of actions. These data are discussed in the context of the mirror neuron system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23247469What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.