Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30019268›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2020

Individual differences in processing resources modulate bimanual interference in pointing.

Constanze Hesse, Laura Koroknai, Jutta Billino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

3 authors.

Constanze HesseSchool of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, King's Campus, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, UK. c.hesse@abdn.ac.uk.
Laura KoroknaiSchool of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, King's Campus, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, UK.
Jutta BillinoDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Justus-Liebig Universitaet Giessen, Giessen, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB/TRR 135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coordinating both hands during bimanual reaching is a complex task that can generate interference during action preparation as often indicated by prolonged reaction times for movements that require moving the two hands at different amplitudes. Individual processing constraints are thought to contribute to this interference effect. Most importantly, however, the amount of interference seems to depend considerably on overall task demands suggesting that interference increases as the available processing resources decrease. Here, we further investigated this idea by comparing performance in a simple direct cueing and a more difficult symbolic cueing task between three groups of participants that supposedly vary in their processing resources, i.e., musicians, young adults and older adults. We found that the size of interference effects during symbolic cueing varied in the tested groups: musicians showed the smallest and older adults the largest interference effects. More importantly, a regression model, using processing speed and processing capacity as predictor variables, revealed a clear link between the available processing resources and the size of the interference effect during symbolic cueing. In the easier direct cueing task, no reliable interference was observed on a group level. We propose that the susceptibility to bimanual interference is modulated by the task-specific processing requirements in relation with the available processing resources of an individual.

Indexed as

IndividualityAdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsCuesFemaleHandHumansMaleMiddle AgedMovementMusicProfessional CompetencePsychomotor PerformanceReaction Time

Identifiers

PMID30019268
PMCPMC7040058

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.