ArticleNeuroscience2017
Unintentional force changes in cyclical tasks performed by an abundant system: Empirical observations and a dynamical model.
Article in Neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Performance drifts in two-finger cyclical force production tasks performed by one and two actors.Experimental brain research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The study explored unintentional force changes elicited by removing visual feedback during cyclical, two-finger isometric force production tasks. Subjects performed two types of tasks at 1Hz, paced by an auditory metronome. One - Force task - required cyclical changes in total force while maintaining the sharing, defined as relative contribution of a finger to total force. The other task - Share task - required cyclical changes in sharing while keeping total force unchanged. Each trial started under full visual feedback on both force and sharing; subsequently, feedback on the variable that was instructed to stay constant was frozen, and finally feedback on the other variable was also removed. In both tasks, turning off visual feedback on total force elicited a drop in the mid-point of the force cycle and an increase in the peak-to-peak force amplitude. Turning off visual feedback on sharing led to a drift of mean share toward 50:50 across both tasks. Without visual feedback there was consistent deviation of the two force time series from the in-phase pattern (typical of the Force task) and from the out-of-phase pattern (typical of the Share task). This finding is in contrast to most earlier studies that demonstrated only two stable patterns, in-phase and out-of-phase. We interpret the results as consequences of drifts of parameters in a dynamical system leading in particular to drifts in the referent finger coordinates toward their actual coordinates. The relative phase desynchronization is caused by the right-left differences in the hypothesized drift processes, consistent with the dynamic dominance hypothesis.
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.