ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2015
Hand interception of occluded motion in humans: a test of model-based vs. on-line control.
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 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed.
- Grasping in One-Handed Catching in Relation to Performance.PloS one · 2016Trial
- Interception of visible and occluded ballistic trajectories: differential contributions by areas MT/V5, V6, V6A and the vestibular premotor cortex evaluated by TMS.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2026Article
- Implied gravity promotes coherent motion perception.NPJ microgravity · 2025Article
- Computational account for the naturalness perception of others' jumping motion based on a vertical projectile motion model.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Realizing the gravity of the simulation: adaptation to simulated hypogravity leads to altered predictive control.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Interception of vertically approaching objects: temporal recruitment of the internal model of gravity and contribution of optical information.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Motion-in-depth effects on interceptive timing errors in an immersive environment.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Where is my hand in space? The internal model of gravity influences proprioception.Biology letters · 2021Article
- Perceptual-motor styles.Experimental brain research · 2021Review
- Perceptual judgments of duration of parabolic motions.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Watching the Effects of Gravity. Vestibular Cortex and the Neural Representation of "Visual" Gravity.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2021Review
- Representational gravity: Empirical findings and theoretical implications.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2020Review
- Determining mean and standard deviation of the strong gravity prior through simulations.PloS one · 2020Article
- Visuomotor Interactions and Perceptual Judgments in Virtual Reality Simulating Different Levels of Gravity.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
- The role of cortical areas hMT/V5+ and TPJ on the magnitude of representational momentum and representational gravity: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study.Experimental brain research · 2019Article
- Earth-Gravity Congruent Motion Facilitates Ocular Control for Pursuit of Parabolic Trajectories.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- A novel dissociation between representational momentum and representational gravity through response modality.Psychological research · 2019Article
- Body orientation contributes to modelling the effects of gravity for target interception in humans.The Journal of physiology · 2019Article
- Rolling Motion Along an Incline: Visual Sensitivity to the Relation Between Acceleration and Slope.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two control schemes have been hypothesized for the manual interception of fast visual targets. In the model-free on-line control, extrapolation of target motion is based on continuous visual information, without resorting to physical models. In the model-based control, instead, a prior model of target motion predicts the future spatiotemporal trajectory. To distinguish between the two hypotheses in the case of projectile motion, we asked participants to hit a ball that rolled down an incline at 0.2 g and then fell in air at 1 g along a parabola. By varying starting position, ball velocity and trajectory differed between trials. Motion on the incline was always visible, whereas parabolic motion was either visible or occluded. We found that participants were equally successful at hitting the falling ball in both visible and occluded conditions. Moreover, in different trials the intersection points were distributed along the parabolic trajectories of the ball, indicating that subjects were able to extrapolate an extended segment of the target trajectory. Remarkably, this trend was observed even at the very first repetition of movements. These results are consistent with the hypothesis of model-based control, but not with on-line control. Indeed, ball path and speed during the occlusion could not be extrapolated solely from the kinematic information obtained during the preceding visible phase. The only way to extrapolate ball motion correctly during the occlusion was to assume that the ball would fall under gravity and air drag when hidden from view. Such an assumption had to be derived from prior experience.
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.