ArticleExperimental brain research2015
Hitting moving targets with a continuously changing temporal window.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Grasping in One-Handed Catching in Relation to Performance.PloS one · 2016Trial
- Motion-in-depth effects on interceptive timing errors in an immersive environment.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Perception of saccadic reaction time.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Drift-diffusion explains response variability and capacity for tracking objects.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Accuracy of Intercepting Moving Tactile Targets.Perception · 2019Article
- Integration of speed and time for estimating time to contact.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
- Temporal and spatial constraints of action effect on sensory binding.Experimental brain research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hitting a moving target requires that we do not miss the target when it is around the aimed position. The time available for us not to miss the target when it is at the position of interest is usually called the time window and depends on target's speed and size. These variables, among others, have been manipulated in previous studies but kept constant within the same trial or session. Here, we present results of a hitting task in which targets underwent simple harmonic motion, which is defined by a sinusoidal function. Target velocity changes continuously in this motion and so does the time window which is shorter in the centre (peak velocity) and longer at the turning points (lowest velocity) within a single trial. We studied two different conditions in which the target moved with a reliable (across trials) amplitude displacement or reliable peak velocity, respectively, and subjects were free to decide where and when to hit it. Results show that subjects made a compromise between maximum and minimum target's speed, so that they did hit the target at intermediate speed values. Interestingly, the reliability of target peak velocity (or displacement) modulated the point of interception. When target's peak velocity was more reliable, subjects intercepted the target at positions with smaller temporal windows and the reverse was true when displacement was reliable. Subjects adapted the interceptive behaviour to the underlying statistical structure of the targets. Finally, in a control condition in which the temporal window also depended on the instant size and not only on speed, subjects intercepted the target when it moved at similar speeds than when the size was constant. This finding suggests that velocity rather than the temporal window contributed more to controlling the interceptive movements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26003129What 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.