ArticleScientific reports2017
The Mechanical Representation of Temporal Delays.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- During haptic communication, the central nervous system compensates distinctly for delay and noise.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Contrasting contributions of movement onset and duration to self-evaluation of sensorimotor timing performance.The European journal of neuroscience · 2021Article
- Better grip force control by attending to the controlled object: Evidence for direct force estimation from visual motion.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Adaptation to visual feedback delays on touchscreens with hand vision.Experimental brain research · 2018Article
- Neglect-Like Effects on Drawing Symmetry Induced by Adaptation to a Laterally Asymmetric Visuomotor Delay.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2018Article
- State-Based Delay Representation and Its Transfer from a Game of Pong to Reaching and Tracking.eNeuroArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When we knock on a door, we perceive the impact as a collection of simultaneous events, combining sound, sight, and tactile sensation. In reality, information from different modalities but from a single source is flowing inside the brain along different pathways, reaching processing centers at different times. Therefore, interpreting different sensory modalities which seem to occur simultaneously requires information processing that accounts for these different delays. As in a computer-based robotic system, does the brain use some explicit estimation of the time delay, to realign the sensory flows? Or does it compensate for temporal delays by representing them as changes in the body/environment mechanics? Using delayed-state or an approximation for delayed-state manipulations between visual and proprioceptive feedback during a tracking task, we show that tracking errors, grip forces, and learning curves are consistent with predictions of a representation that is based on approximation for delay, refuting an explicit delayed-state representation. Delayed-state representations are based on estimating the time elapsed between the movement commands and their observed consequences. In contrast, an approximation for delay representations result from estimating the instantaneous relation between the expected and observed motion variables, without explicit reference to time.
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.