Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32272143›Full record

ArticleNeuroscience letters2020

Ecological validity of experimental set-up affects parietal involvement during letter production.

Sophia Vinci-Booher, Karin H James

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroscience letters, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Sophia Vinci-Booher1101 E. 10th Street, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, United States. Electronic address: svincibo@indiana.edu.
Karin H James1101 E. 10th Street, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, United States. Electronic address: khjames@indiana.edu.

Funding

TRAINING PROGRAM IN INTEGRATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESST32HD007475 · NICHD · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI LINDA B. SMITH · 1995 to 2026
$9.5M
NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD007475
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies of symbol production using fMRI often use techniques that introduce an artificial pairing between motor production and visual perception. These techniques allow participants to see their own output by recording their pen trajectories using a touchscreen-only tablet and displaying these productions on a mirror placed above their head. We recently developed an MR-safe writing tablet with video display that allows participants to see their own hand and their own productions while producing symbols in real time on the surface where they are producing them-allowing for more ecologically valid fMRI studies of production. We conducted a study to determine whether the participation of posterior parietal cortex during symbol production was affected by the pairing of motor production and visual feedback associated with the two types of tablets. We performed ROI analyses in intraparietal sulcus while adult participants produced letters to dictation using either a touchscreen-only tablet (no visual guidance of the hand) (n = 14) or using a touchscreen-and-video-display tablet (visual guidance of the hand) (n = 14). We found that left posterior intraparietal sulcus was more active during production with the touchscreen-only tablet than during production with the touchscreen-and-video-display tablet. These results suggest that posterior parietal involvement during production tasks is associated with the somewhat artificial visual-motor pairing that is introduced by the techniques used in some studies of symbol production.

Indexed as

HandwritingFeedback, SensoryHumansParietal LobePsychomotor PerformanceVisual Perceptionhandwritingintraparietal sulcusMRI tabletvision

Identifiers

PMID32272143
PMCPMC8015435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.