Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25674946›Full record

ArticleMotor control2016

Movement Adjustments Have Short Latencies Because There is No Need to Detect Anything.

Jeroen B Smeets, Leonie Oostwoud Wijdenes, Eli Brenner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Motor control, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Rapid, systematic updating of movement by accumulated decision evidence.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  9. Express Visuomotor Responses Reflect Knowledge of Both Target Locations and Contextual Rules during Reaches of Different Amplitudes.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Hand movements respond to any motion near the endpoint.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jeroen B SmeetsResearch Institute MOVE, Dept. of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Leonie Oostwoud Wijdenes
Eli Brenner

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We can adjust an ongoing movement to a change in the target's position with a latency of about 100 ms, about half of the time that is needed to start a new movement in response to the same change in target position (reaction time). In this opinion paper, we discuss factors that could explain the difference in latency between initiating and adjusting a movement in response to target displacements. We consider the latency to be the sum of the durations of various stages in information processing. Many of these stages are identical for adjusting and initiating a movement; however, for movement initiation, it is essential to detect that something has changed to respond, whereas adjustments to movements can be based on updated position information without detecting that the position has changed. This explanation for the shorter latency for movement adjustments also explains why we can respond to changes that we do not detect.

Indexed as

Feedback, PhysiologicalHumansMovementPsychomotor PerformanceReaction Time

Identifiers

PMID25674946

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.