ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2016
Spatiotemporal distribution of location and object effects in the electromyographic activity of upper extremity muscles during reach-to-grasp.
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Progressively shifting patterns of co-modulation among premotor cortex neurons carry dynamically similar signals during action execution and observation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Global synchronization of functional corticomuscular coupling under precise grip tasks using multichannel EEG and EMG signals.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Deciphering the functional role of spatial and temporal muscle synergies in whole-body movements.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Behavioral Context Determines Network State and Variability Dynamics in Monkey Motor Cortex.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2018Article
- Spatiotemporal Distribution of Location and Object Effects in Primary Motor Cortex Neurons during Reach-to-Grasp.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2016Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In reaching to grasp an object, proximal muscles that act on the shoulder and elbow classically have been viewed as transporting the hand to the intended location, while distal muscles that act on the fingers simultaneously shape the hand to grasp the object. Prior studies of electromyographic (EMG) activity in upper extremity muscles therefore have focused, by and large, either on proximal muscle activity during reaching to different locations or on distal muscle activity as the subject grasps various objects. Here, we examined the EMG activity of muscles from the shoulder to the hand, as monkeys reached and grasped in a task that dissociated location and object. We quantified the extent to which variation in the EMG activity of each muscle depended on location, on object, and on their interaction-all as a function of time. Although EMG variation depended on both location and object beginning early in the movement, an early phase of substantial location effects in muscles from proximal to distal was followed by a later phase in which object effects predominated throughout the extremity. Interaction effects remained relatively small. Our findings indicate that neural control of reach-to-grasp may occur largely in two sequential phases: the first, serving to project the entire upper extremity toward the intended location, and the second, acting predominantly to shape the entire extremity for grasping the object.
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.