Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29882127›Full record

ReviewIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2018

Motor Intention/Intentionality and Associationism - A conceptual review.

Denis Ebbesen, Jeppe Olsen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Denis EbbesenDepartment of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. dke@psy.ku.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-9960-6971
Jeppe OlsenDepartment of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motor intention/intentionality (MI) has been investigated from many different angles. Some researchers focus on the purely physical and mechanical aspects of the human motor system, while others emphasize the subjectivity involved in intentionality. While bridging this seemingly dualistic gap between the two concepts ought to be the researcher's' main task, different schools of thought have instead specialized in stressing one (objective) or the other (subjective) part of this construct. Thus, we find everything from neuroscientific to phenomenologically inspired approaches to MI. The purpose of this article is to review the literature regarding these different approaches to the MI construct. In reviewing the literature, we introduce a broadened conception of associationism. In organizing our data in relation to the laws of association, a lack of methodology clearly manifests itself. Hence, 123 articles out of 143 meet the criteria of our definition of associationism. It seems that this old doctrine sneaks in to a big part of the research rather implicitly through a lack of methodology. To shed light on how this happens in the 123 articles, we develop a continuum to show to which extend associationism operates on a transcendent or substantial level in each article. We find only very few articles that seem to try to gap the bridge between motor and intention/intentionality, and thus we suggest that future MI research reintroduce methodological debates concerning the conceptual character of this construct.

Indexed as

AssociationIntentionPsychological TheoryHumansMotor ActivityAssociationismIntentionIntentionalityMental representationMotorPhilosophy of science

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.