Trial reportPloS one2013
Speed of human biological form and motion processing.
Trial report in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Sensory processes modulate differences in multi-component behavior and cognitive control between childhood and adulthood.Human brain mapping · 2017Article
- Cerebral Dynamics during the Observation of Point-Light Displays Depicting Postural Adjustments.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2017Article
- Attenuation of visual reafferent signals in the parietal cortex during voluntary movement.Journal of neurophysiology · 2016Article
- The importance of sensory integration processes for action cascading.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Direction of Biological Motion Affects Early Brain Activation: A Link with Social Cognition.PloS one · 2015Article
- The neurophysiology of biological motion perception in schizophrenia.Brain and behavior · 2015Article
- Neural rhythmic symphony of human walking observation: Upside-down and Uncoordinated condition on cortical theta, alpha, beta and gamma oscillations.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2014Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent work suggests that biological motion processing can begin within ~110 ms of stimulus onset, as indexed by the P1 component of the event-related potential (ERP). Here, we investigated whether modulation of the P1 component reflects configural processing alone, rather than the processing of both configuration and motion cues. A three-stimulus oddball task was employed to evaluate bottom-up processing of biological motion. Intact point-light walkers (PLWs) or scrambled PLWs served as distractor stimuli, whereas point-light displays of tool motion served as standard and target stimuli. In a second experiment, the same design was used, but the dynamic stimuli were replaced with static point-light displays. The first experiment revealed that dynamic PLWs elicited a larger P1 as compared to scrambled PLWs. A similar P1 increase was also observed for static PLWs in the second experiment, indicating that these stimuli were more salient than static, scrambled PLWs. These findings suggest that the visual system can rapidly extract global form information from static PLWs and that the observed P1 effect for dynamic PLWs is not dependent on the presence of motion cues. Finally, we found that the N1 component was sensitive to dynamic, but not static, PLWs, suggesting that this component reflects the processing of both form and motion information. The sensitivity of P1 to static PLWs has implications for dynamic form models of biological motion processing that posit temporal integration of configural cues present in individual frames of PLW animations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.