ArticleJournal of human kinetics2019
Reaction to a Visual Stimulus: Anticipation with Steady and Dynamic Contractions.
Article in Journal of human kinetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of computerized agility training on basketball performance: a comparative study with rope ladder training.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Feasibility of a Non-Anticipatory, Random-Action Target System to Improve Shooting Performance: A Brief Field Trial.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Study on the Impact of Implementing an Exercise Program Using Fitlight Technology for the Development of Upper Limb Coordinative Abilities in Basketball Players.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Impact of Implementing an Exergame Program on the Level of Reaction Time Optimization in Handball, Volleyball, and Basketball Players.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Sex differences in cognitive-motor components of braking in older adults.Experimental brain research · 2022Article
- Older adults use a motor plan that is detrimental to endpoint control.Scientific reports · 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
Abstract
Reacting fast to visual stimuli is important for many activities of daily living and sports. It remains unknown whether the strategy used during the anticipatory period influences the speed of the reaction. The purpose of this study was to determine if reaction time (RT) differs following a steady and a dynamic anticipatory strategy. Twenty-two young adults (21.0 ± 2.2 yrs, 13 women) participated in this study. Participants performed 15 trials of a reaction time task with ankle dorsiflexion using a steady (steady force at 15% MVC) and a dynamic (oscillating force from 10-20% MVC) anticipatory strategy. We recorded primary agonist muscle (tibialis anterior; TA) electromyographic (EMG) activity. We quantified RT as the time interval from the onset of the stimulus to the onset of force. We found that a dynamic anticipatory strategy, compared to the steady anticipatory strategy, resulted in a longer RT (p = 0.04). We classified trials of the dynamic condition based on the level and direction of anticipatory force at the moment of the response. We found that RT was longer during the middle descending relative to the middle ascending and the steady conditions (p < 0.01). All together, these results suggest that RT is longer when preceded by a dynamic anticipatory strategy. Specifically, the longer RT is a consequence of the variable direction of force at which the response can occur, which challenges the motor planning process.
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.