Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31982935›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2021

Visual feedback is not important for bimanual human interval timing.

Breanna E Studenka, Daisha L Cummins, Kodey Myers

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 99% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Breanna E StudenkaDepartment of Kinesiology and Health Science, Utah State University, 7000 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84242, USA. breanna.studenka@usu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5124-0384
Daisha L CumminsDepartment of Kinesiology and Health Science, Utah State University, 7000 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84242, USA.
Kodey MyersDepartment of Kinesiology and Health Science, Utah State University, 7000 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84242, USA.
Utah State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The clock variance of intervals produced by one finger is reduced when that finger taps along with another finger (termed the bimanual advantage). The multiple-timekeeper model proposes a coupling of internal clocks, leading to reduced clock variance for bimanual timing. Alternatively, reduced variance for bimanual timing could result from additional sensory feedback from two fingers as opposed to one. We aimed to test the role of visual feedback in reducing temporal variability. Participants tapped unimanually and bimanually (with no table contact) in three conditions: full vision, blindfolded, and with additional visual feedback provided via a mirror reflecting the right hand. We predicted that temporal variability would be reduced for tapping with vision versus no vision, and when the left hand was represented by a mirror but did not actually tap. Additional, redundant visual information did not reduce temporal variability for any condition, suggesting that visual feedback is not crucial for bimanual advantage. These findings support the role of sensory feedback (namely, tactile, auditory, and proprioceptive) in reducing timekeeper variability during bimanual timing and argue against a strictly multiple-timekeeper model.

Indexed as

AdultFeedback, SensoryFemaleHumansMaleMovementProprioceptionPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeTouch

Identifiers

PMID31982935
OpenAlexW3001046859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.