ArticlePloS one2020
Modifiable motion graphics for capturing sensations.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Summary and Analysis of Digital Pain Manikin Data in Adults With Pain Experience: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between an embodied sensory experience and the ability to translate the perception of this experience visually using modifiable motion graphics.
methodsA custom-designed software was developed to enable users to modify a motion graphic in real-time. The motion graphics were designed to depict realistic visualizations of pain quality descriptors, such as tingling and burning. Participants (N = 34) received an electrical stimulation protocol known to elicit sensations of tingling. The protocol consisted of eight stimulation intensities ranging from 2-6mA delivered, in a randomized fashion and repeated three times, to the index finger. Immediately after each stimulus, participants drew the area of the evoked sensation on a digital body chart of the hand. Participants then modified the motion graphic of tingling by adjusting two parameters, namely the speed (rate of dots disappearing and re-appearing) and density of these dots in the drawn area. Then, participants rated the perceived intensity and selected the most appropriate pain quality descriptor.
resultsThere was an increase in the area, density, and perceived intensity ratings as the electrical stimulation intensity increased (P<0.001). The density of the motion graphic, but not speed, correlated with perceived intensity ratings (0.69, P<0.001) and electrical stimulation intensities (0.63, P<0.01). The descriptor 'tingling' was predominantly selected in the range of 3-4.5mA and was often followed by 'stabbing' as the electrical intensity increased. DISCUSSION: The motion graphic tested was perceived to reflect a tingling sensation, the stimulation protocol elicited a tingling sensation, and participants adjusted one of the two motion graphic features systematically. In conclusion, an embodied sensation, such as tingling, maybe visually represented similarly between individuals. These findings create research, clinical, and commercial opportunities that utilize psychophysics to explore, visualize, and quantify changes in embodied sensory experiences in response to known stimuli.
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.