ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2017
Towards a unifying mechanism for cancelling movements.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chronic Pain and Cognitive Dysfunction: Clinical Implement, Mechanism, and Therapeutic Strategy.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Review
- The CRAVE and ARGE scales for motivation states for physical activity and sedentarism: Brazilian Portuguese translation and single-item versions.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Article
- Commentary: Towards a unifying mechanism for cancelling movements.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
- Corrective response times in a coordinated eye-head-arm countermanding task.Journal of neurophysiology · 2018Article
- The Stochastic Early Reaction, Inhibition, and late Action (SERIA) model for antisaccades.PLoS computational biology · 2017Article
- Not moving: the fundamental but neglected motor function.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017Review
- A Pause-then-Cancel model of stopping: evidence from basal ganglia neurophysiology.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017Review
- Behavioural and computational varieties of response inhibition in eye movements.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017Review
- Abandoning and modifying one action plan for alternatives.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017Review
- Mechanisms of saccade suppression revealed in the anti-saccade task.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For precise motor control, we must be able to not only initiate movements with appropriate timing, but also stop them. The importance of stopping tended to be overlooked in research in favour of studying movement itself, so we are still only beginning to understand the neural basis of action cancellation. However, the development of models of behaviour in a wider range of tasks, and their relation to neural recordings has provided great insight into the underlying neurophysiology. Here we focus on developments of the linear approach to threshold with ergodic rate (LATER) model, relating these to complementary neurophysiological studies. It is tempting to consider that there may be a unifying mechanism for cancelling impending decisions in many contexts and how future efforts may clarify this possibility.This article is part of the themed issue 'Movement suppression: brain mechanisms for stopping and stillness'.
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.