ArticlePsychological research2021
Visual feedback is not important for bimanual human interval timing.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eyes-closed finger-tapping task for assessing visual dependence in temporal motor control in Parkinson's disease.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- Head movements induced by voluntary neck flexion stabilize sensorimotor synchronization of the finger to syncopated auditory rhythms.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.