ArticleData in brief2020
Finger pressing task data collected with and without post-trial performance feedback.
Article in Data in brief, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The dataset presented in the article consists of finger forces of participants during a finger pressing task. The finger pressing task involves the production of fingertip forces using Index, Middle, Ring, and Little (I, M, R&L) fingers of the right hand. The participant performed two types of task, namely MVC task and visual occlusion task. The participants completed the Maximum Voluntary Contraction (MVC) task first, where they were instructed to produce maximum possible force from each finger individually and all fingers together. The visually occluded finger pressing task followed the MVC task. In this task, the participant's visual feedback was removed after 8s. There were two conditions in this task, one with post-trial performance feedback (referred to as "epilogue" condition in this manuscript) and another that does not have this post-trial performance feedback (referred to as "no epilogue" condition in this manuscript). The epilogue condition is a particular case of post-trial visual feedback where, at the end of each trial, the performance in that trial is shown to the participant. This was followed by the next trial. Normalization of force levels for visual occlusion tasks was performed for the forces with the participants produced in the MVC task. Fourteen healthy participants were recruited for performing the experiments. For the experiments, they were instructed to produce fingertip forces using four fingers of the right hand with the target line at 15% MVC (15% of the force that they produced in the MVC task). The two visual occlusion conditions had 30 trials each. In both conditions, a single trial lasted 16 s. For the initial 8 s, there is visual feedback, which follows an eight-second visual occlusion period where there is no visual feedback. The dataset consists of three files; the first file has the data of Maximum Voluntary Contraction (MVC) data, the second file has the data for the "without epilogue" condition, and the third file has the data of "epilogue" case.
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.