ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2019
How Long Is Too Long: An Individual Time-Window for Motor Planning.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual-perceptual features of augmentative and alternative communication displays affect efficiency of motor reaching by individuals with Down syndrome: a pilot study.Augmentative and alternative communication (Baltimore, Md. : 1985) · 2026Article
- Limited Evidence to Review-Is There an Association Between Cognition and Upper Extremity Motor Reaction Time in Older Adults?NeuroSci · 2025Review
- Behavioral measurements of motor readiness in mice.Current biology : CB · 2023Article
- Excessive excitability of inhibitory cortical circuit and disturbance of ballistic targeting movement in degenerative cerebellar ataxia.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Behavioral measurements of motor readiness in mice.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Reduced motor planning underlying inhibition of prepotent responses in children with ADHD.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Children's Learning of Non-adjacent Dependencies Using a Web-Based Computer Game Setting.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human motor response time (RT) is determined by the matureness of the preceding neural motor planning process. In the current study, we characterize the temporal boundaries required for the motor planning process, and its impact on the overall motor RT. In particular, we contrasted short and long planning times by measuring the resulting differences in motor RTs, in an attempt to find whether an optimal planning time for minimal RT exists. Using a "Timed Response" paradigm, we presented participants with varying planning intervals prior to a requested motor response and studied their effect on the timing of initiation of the following movement. We found that, as expected, reaction time shortens as more planning time is provided, yet only until reaching a minimal RT, after which additional planning time increases the motor RT, thus creating a U-shaped behavioral function. Furthermore, since the minimal RT was found to be an individual characteristic, we suggest that there is an individual time window for motor planning.
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.