Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29675715›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2018

Eye movements in interception with delayed visual feedback.

Clara Cámara, Cristina de la Malla, Joan López-Moliner, Eli Brenner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Predictive interception across speed profiles.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

Clara CámaraVision and Control of Action (VISCA) Group, Department of Cognition, Development and Psychology of Education, Institut de Neurociències, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0328-6983
Cristina de la MallaFaculty of Behavioural and Movement Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Joan López-MolinerVision and Control of Action (VISCA) Group, Department of Cognition, Development and Psychology of Education, Institut de Neurociències, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Eli BrennerFaculty of Behavioural and Movement Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. eli.brenner@vu.nl.

Funding

Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad BES-2014-069289Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad PSI2013-41568PNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek NWO 464-13-169
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increased reliance on electronic devices such as smartphones in our everyday life exposes us to various delays between our actions and their consequences. Whereas it is known that people can adapt to such delays, the mechanisms underlying such adaptation remain unclear. To better understand these mechanisms, the current study explored the role of eye movements in interception with delayed visual feedback. In two experiments, eye movements were recorded as participants tried to intercept a moving target with their unseen finger while receiving delayed visual feedback about their own movement. In Experiment 1, the target randomly moved in one of two different directions at one of two different velocities. The delay between the participant's finger movement and movement of the cursor that provided feedback about the finger movements was gradually increased. Despite the delay, participants followed the target with their gaze. They were quite successful at hitting the target with the cursor. Thus, they moved their finger to a position that was ahead of where they were looking. Removing the feedback showed that participants had adapted to the delay. In Experiment 2, the target always moved in the same direction and at the same velocity, while the cursor's delay varied across trials. Participants still always directed their gaze at the target. They adjusted their movement to the delay on each trial, often succeeding to intercept the target with the cursor. Since their gaze was always directed at the target, and they could not know the delay until the cursor started moving, participants must have been using peripheral vision of the delayed cursor to guide it to the target. Thus, people deal with delays by directing their gaze at the target and using both experience from previous trials (Experiment 1) and peripheral visual information (Experiment 2) to guide their finger in a way that will make the cursor hit the target.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalAdultEye MovementsFeedback, SensoryFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhotic StimulationPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeVisual PerceptionDelayGazeMotor controlPursuitVisuomotor adaptation

Identifiers

PMID29675715
PMCPMC6010481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.