ArticleScientific reports2016
Sub-optimality in motor planning is retained throughout 9 days practice of 2250 trials.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- How does explicit reliability guide choices? Effect of trustworthiness on choice and metacognition.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- The role of feedback for sensorimotor decisions under risk.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Sequential reaching in older adults: vibrotactile feedback improves preparation and movement control.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Dissecting Bayes: Using influence measures to test normative use of probability density information derived from a sample.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Can golfers choose low-risk routes in steep putting based on visual feedback of ball trajectory?Frontiers in sports and active living · 2023Article
- Changes in error-correction behavior according to visuomotor maps in goal-directed projection tasks.Journal of neurophysiology · 2022Article
- Optimal integration of kinematic and ball-flight information when perceiving the speed of a moving ball.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
- Sensorimotor strategy selection under time constraints in the presence of two motor targets with different values.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Competition Rather Than Observation and Cooperation Facilitates Optimal Motor Planning.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2021Article
- Sub-optimality in motor planning is not improved by explicit observation of motor uncertainty.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Risk aversion in the adjustment of speed-accuracy tradeoff depending on time constraints.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Over Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Modulates Risk-Attitude in Motor Decision-Making.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2019Article
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
Optimality in motor planning, as well as accuracy in motor execution, is required to maximize expected gain under risk. In this study, we tested whether humans are able to update their motor planning. Participants performed a coincident timing task with an asymmetric gain function, in which optimal response timing to gain the highest total score depends on response variability. Their behaviours were then compared using a Bayesian optimal decision model. After 9 days of practicing 2250 trials, the total score increased, and temporal variance decreased. On the other hand, the participants showed consistent risk-seeking or risk-averse behaviour, preserving suboptimal motor planning. These results suggest that a human's computational ability to calculate an optimal motor plan is limited, and it is difficult to improve it through repeated practice with a score feedback.
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.