ArticlePsychological research2020
Individual differences in processing resources modulate bimanual interference in pointing.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Reaction time distribution analysis of bimanual movements with spatial and symbolic cues.Experimental brain research · 2025Article
- Bimanual motor impairments in older adults: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.EXCLI journal · 2022Review
- More Pronounced Bimanual Interference in Proximal Compared to Distal Effectors of the Upper Extremities.Frontiers in psychology · 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.
Funding
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
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.