Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31932867›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2020

Visual cues, expectations, and sensorimotor memories in the prediction and perception of object dynamics during manipulation.

Thomas Rudolf Schneider, Gavin Buckingham, Joachim Hermsdörfer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Thomas Rudolf SchneiderChair of Human Movement Science, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 60/ 62, 80992, Munich, Germany. Thomas.Rudolf.Schneider@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8203-7066
Gavin BuckinghamSport and Health Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
Joachim HermsdörferChair of Human Movement Science, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 60/ 62, 80992, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When we grasp and lift novel objects, we rely on visual cues and sensorimotor memories to predictively scale our finger forces and exert compensatory torques according to object properties. Recently, it was shown that object appearance, previous force scaling errors, and previous torque compensation errors strongly impact our percept. However, the influence of visual geometric cues on the perception of object torques and weights in a grasp to lift task is poorly understood. Moreover, little is known about how visual cues, prior expectations, sensory feedback, and sensorimotor memories are integrated for anticipatory torque control and object perception. Here, 12 young and 12 elderly participants repeatedly grasped and lifted an object while trying to prevent object tilt. Before each trial, we randomly repositioned both the object handle, providing a geometric cue on the upcoming torque, as well as a hidden weight, adding an unforeseeable torque variation. Before lifting, subjects indicated their torque expectations, as well as reporting their experience of torque and weight after each lift. Mixed-effect multiple regression models showed that visual shape cues governed anticipatory torque compensation, whereas sensorimotor memories played less of a role. In contrast, the external torque and committed compensation errors at lift-off mainly determined how object torques and weight were perceived. The modest effect of handle position differed for torque and weight perception. Explicit torque expectations were also correlated with anticipatory torque compensation and torque perception. Our main findings generalized across both age groups. Our results suggest distinct weighting of inputs for action and perception according to reliability.

Indexed as

CuesAdolescentAdultAgedBiomechanical PhenomenaFeedback, SensoryFemaleHand StrengthHumansMaleMemoryMiddle AgedMotivationPsychomotor PerformanceWeight PerceptionYoung AdultGraspingSensorimotor memoriesTorque perceptionVisual processingWeight perception

Identifiers

PMID31932867
PMCPMC7007906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.