ArticleExperimental brain research2019
Shared right-hemispheric representations of sensorimotor goals in dynamic task environments.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2019. 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.
- Multivariate Analysis of Electrophysiological Signals Reveals the Time Course of Precision Grasps Programs: Evidence for Nonhierarchical Evolution of Grasp Control.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional behaviour affords that we form goals to integrate sensory information about the world around us with suitable motor actions, such as when we plan to grab an object with a hand. However, much research has tested grasping in static scenarios where goals are pursued with repetitive movements, whereas dynamic contexts require goals to be pursued even when changes in the environment require a change in the actions to attain them. To study grasp goals in dynamic environments here, we employed a task where the goal remained the same but the execution of the movement changed; we primed participants to grasp objects either with their right or left hand, and occasionally they had to switch to grasping with both. Switch costs should be minimal if grasp goal representations were used continuously, for example, within the left dominant hemisphere. But remapped or re-computed goal representations should delay movements. We found that switching from right-hand grasping to bimanual grasping delayed reaction times but switching from left-hand grasping to bimanual grasping did not. Further, control experiments showed that the lateralized switch costs were not caused by asymmetric inhibition between hemispheres or switches between usual and unusual tasks. Our results show that the left hemisphere does not serve a general role of sensorimotor grasp goal representation. Instead, sensorimotor grasp goals appear to be represented at intermediate levels of abstraction, downstream from cognitive task representations, yet upstream from the control of the grasping effectors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30694342What 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.