Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29520445›Full record

ReviewExperimental brain research2018

The power law as behavioral illusion: reappraising the reappraisals.

Richard S Marken, Dennis M Shaffer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Experimental brain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Richard S MarkenDepartment of Psychology, Antioch University, 10459 Holman Ave., Los Angeles, CA, USA. rsmarken@gmail.com.
Dennis M ShafferDepartment of Psychology, Ohio State University Mansfield, Mansfield, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Marken and Shaffer (Exp Brain Res 235:1835-1842, 2017) have argued that the power law of movement, which is generally thought to reflect the mechanisms that produce movement, is actually an example of what Powers (Psychol Rev 85:417-435, 1978) dubbed a behavioral illusion, where an observed relationship between variables is seen as revealing something about the mechanisms that produce a behavior when, in fact, it does not. Zago et al. (Exp Brain Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s0022-017-5108-z , 2017) and Taylor (Exp Brain Res, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5192-8 , 2018) have "reappraised" this argument, claiming that it is based on logical, mathematical, statistical and theoretical errors. In the present paper we answer these claims and show that the power law of movement is, indeed, an example of a behavioral illusion. However, we also explain how this apparently negative finding can point the study of movement in a new and more productive direction, with research aimed at understanding movement in terms of its purposes rather than its causes.

Indexed as

MovementBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansIllusionsBehavioral illusionCause–effect modelControlled variablesControl modelPower law of movement

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.