ArticleExperimental brain research2018
Effects of auditory feedback on movements with two-segment sequence and eye-hand coordination.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Relationship between Neuromuscular Control and Physical Activity in the Formation of the Visual-Psychomotor Schemes in Preschools.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The present study investigated the effect of auditory feedback on planning and control of two-segment reaching movements and eye-hand coordination. In particular, it was examined whether additional auditory information indicating the progression of the initial reach (i.e., passing the midway and contacting the target) affects the performance of that reach and gaze shift to the second target at the transition between two segments. Young adults performed a rapid two-segment reaching task, in which both the first and second segments had two target sizes. One out of three auditory feedback conditions included the reach-progression information: a continuous tone was delivered at a consistent timing during the initial reach from the midway to the target contact. Conversely, the other two were control conditions: a continuous tone was delivered at a random timing in one condition or not delivered in the other. The results showed that the initial reach became more accurate with the auditory reach-progression cue compared to without any auditory cue. When that cue was available, movement time of the initial reach was decreased, which was accompanied by an increased peak velocity and a decreased time to peak velocity. These findings suggest that the auditory reach-progression feedback enhanced the preplanned control of the initial reach. Deceleration time of that reach was also decreased with auditory feedback, but it was observed regardless of whether the sound contained the reach-progression information. At the transition between the two segments, the onset latencies of both the gaze shift and reach to the second target became shorter with the auditory reach-progression cue, the effect of which was pronounced when the initial reach had a higher terminal accuracy constraint. This suggests that the reach-progression cue enhanced verification of the termination of initial reach, thereby facilitating the initiation of eye and hand movements to the second target. Taken together, the additional auditory information of reach-progression enhances the planning and control of multi-segment reaches and eye-hand coordination at the segment transition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30159590What 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.