ArticleExperimental brain research2018
Hand anthropometry and the limits of aperture separation determine the utility of Weber's law in grasping and manual estimation.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensory feedback modulates Weber's law of both perception and action.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Grasping follows Weber's law: How to use response variability as a proxy for JND.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Bimanual Grasping Adheres to Weber's Law.i-Perception · 2021Article
- When perception intrudes on 2D grasping: evidence from Garner interference.Psychological research · 2020Article
- Active visuomotor interactions with virtual objects on touchscreens adhere to Weber's law.Psychological research · 2020Article
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 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Recent work proposed that biomechanical constraints in aperture separation limit the utility of Weber's law in determining whether dissociable visual codes support grasping and manual estimation. We tested this assertion by having participants precision grasp, manually estimate and complete a method of adjustment task to targets scaled within and beyond the range of their maximal aperture separation (i.e., from 20 to 140% of participant-specific maximal aperture separation: MAS). For grasping and manual estimation tasks, just-noticeable-difference (JND) scores were computed via the within-participant standard deviations in peak grip aperture, whereas method of adjustment JNDs were computed via the within-participant standard deviations in response output. Method of adjustment JNDs increased linearly across the range of targets; that is, responses adhered to Weber's law. Manual estimation JNDs linearly increased for targets 20-100% of MAS and then decreased for targets 120-140% of MAS. In turn, grasping JNDs for targets 20% through 80% of MAS did not differ and were larger than targets 100-140% of MAS. That manual estimation and grasping showed a decrease in JNDs for the largest targets indicates that participants were at their biomechanical limits in aperture shaping, and the fact that the target showing the JND decrease differed between tasks (i.e., manual estimation = 100% of MAS; grasping = 80% of MAS) is attributed to the fact that grasping-but not manual estimation-requires a safety-margin task-set. Accordingly, manual estimations and grasping across a range of functionally 'graspable' targets, respectively, adhered to and violated Weber's law-a result interpreted to reflect the use of dissociable visual codes.
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.