Articlei-Perception2014
Seeing the world topsy-turvy: The primary role of kinematics in biological motion inversion effects.
Article in i-Perception, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Motion-based baby schema in infant gait: inversion effect and the influence of maternal experience.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physical inversion of whole or partial human body representations typically has catastrophic consequences on the observer's ability to perform visual processing tasks. Explanations usually focus on the effects of inversion on the visual system's ability to exploit configural or structural relationships, but more recently have also implicated motion or kinematic cue processing. Here, we systematically tested the role of both on perceptions of sex from upright and inverted point-light walkers. Our data suggest that inversion results in systematic degradations of the processing of kinematic cues. Specifically and intriguingly, they reveal sex-based kinematic differences: Kinematics characteristic of females generally are resistant to inversion effects, while those of males drive systematic sex misperceptions. Implications of the findings are discussed.
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.