Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23571500›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2013

Action, perception and postural planning when reaching for tools.

Alan Sunderland

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Alan SunderlandSchool of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. alan.sunderland@nottingham.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The dorsal and ventral streams model of action and perception suggests that reaching to grasp a tool for use involves integrated operation of the two streams. Few attempts have been made to test the limits of this integration in normal subjects. Twenty normal subjects reached for tools or geometric objects which were rotated rapidly during reaching or immediately beforehand. In a first experiment it was shown that reaching for an inverted tool was slower than reaching for objects which required hand inversion due to proximity to a physical barrier. Also, for the right hand, tool rotation during reaching provoked a higher incidence of hand rotation in the wrong direction than did rotation of objects. In a second similar experiment, hand inversion when grasping objects was induced by the need to plan a future action rather than by proximity of a physical barrier. Despite this balancing of complexity of postural planning for tools and objects, hand rotation errors for both hands were more common for tools than objects. This was consistent with the two-stream model in suggesting that there was a process which produced rapid online tracking of stimulus rotation and this had to be overcome by a slower process which dictated grasping in accordance with knowledge of tool use.

Indexed as

PostureRotationAdolescentAdultFemaleFunctional LateralityHandHand StrengthHumansMaleMovementPhotic StimulationPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeTime FactorsVisual Perception

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.