ArticlePsychological research2020
Pointing movements and visuo-spatial working memory in a joint setting: the role of motor inhibition.
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 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.
- Effects of pointing movements on visuospatial working memory in a joint-action condition: Evidence from eye movements.Memory & cognition · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that, under specific conditions, arrays that have been pointed at encoding are recognized better than passively viewed ones. According to one interpretation, the superior recognition of pointed-to arrays can be explained by the motor inhibition of passively viewed arrays. The present study sought to determine whether a similar motor inhibition can be induced also when the participants observed a co-actor perform the pointing movements. Participants were presented with two spatial arrays, one of which was encoded via observation only (the no-move array), while the other was encoded with pointing movements (the move array); movements were performed either by the participant or by the experimenter. Experiment 1 replicated the advantage of self-pointed arrays over passively viewed arrays. Experiment 2 showed that, when participants passively observed the pointing movements performed by the experimenter, move arrays were recognized no better than no-move arrays. Finally, Experiment 3 demonstrated that, in a joint-action condition in which participants alternated with the experimenter in making pointing movements, the advantage of experimenter-pointed arrays over passively viewed arrays was significant and similar in size to the advantage produced by self-performed movements. Importantly, a series of cross-experiment comparisons indicated that the higher recognition of both self- and experimenter-pointed arrays in Experiment 3 could be explained by the motor inhibition of no-move arrays. We propose that, in a joint condition, the pointing movements performed by the experimenter were represented in the same functional way as self-performed movements and that this produced the motor inhibition of passively viewed arrays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31183548What 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.