Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25589594›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2015

The human motor system alters its reaching movement plan for task-irrelevant, positional forces.

Joshua G A Cashaback, Heather R McGregor, Paul L Gribble

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Online Movements Reflect Ongoing Deliberation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Influence of External Forces on Wrist Proprioception.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2017
    Article
  8. Exploration of joint redundancy but not task space variability facilitates supervised motor learning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2016
    Article
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

3 authors.

Joshua G A CashabackBrain and Mind Institute, Department of Psychology, Western University Canada, London, Ontario, Canada;
Heather R McGregorBrain and Mind Institute, Department of Psychology, Western University Canada, London, Ontario, Canada; Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Western University Canada, London, Ontario, Canada;
Paul L GribbleBrain and Mind Institute, Department of Psychology, Western University Canada, London, Ontario, Canada; Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Western University Canada, London, Ontario, Canada paul@gribblelab.org.

Funding

Training-Induced Plasticity in Human Motor and Sensory SystemsR01HD075740 · NICHD · HASKINS LABORATORIES, INC. · PI OSTRY, DAVID J · 2013 to 2017
$3.2M
Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchNICHD NIH HHS R01 HD075740
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The minimum intervention principle and the uncontrolled manifold hypothesis state that our nervous system only responds to force perturbations and sensorimotor noise if they affect task success. This idea has been tested in muscle and joint coordinate frames and more recently using workspace redundancy (e.g., reaching to large targets). However, reaching studies typically involve spatial and or temporal constraints. Constrained reaches represent a small proportion of movements we perform daily and may limit the emergence of natural behavior. Using more relaxed constraints, we conducted two reaching experiments to test the hypothesis that humans respond to task-relevant forces and ignore task-irrelevant forces. We found that participants responded to both task-relevant and -irrelevant forces. Interestingly, participants experiencing a task-irrelevant force, which simply pushed them into a different area of a large target and had no bearing on task success, changed their movement trajectory prior to being perturbed. These movement trajectory changes did not counteract the task-irrelevant perturbations, as shown in previous research, but rather were made into new areas of the workspace. A possible explanation for this behavior change is that participants were engaging in active exploration. Our data have implications for current models and theories on the control of biological motion.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalAdolescentArmFemaleHumansMaleMovementPhotic StimulationPilot ProjectsPsychomotor PerformanceYoung Adultexplorationminimum intervention principlepositional forcesreachinguncontrolled manifold hypothesis

Identifiers

PMID25589594
PMCPMC4416597

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.