ArticleExperimental brain research2020
Information for anticipatory neuromotor control in catching under load uncertainty.
Article in Experimental brain research, 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.
- The role of anticipatory and reflexive compensatory muscle activation in catching errors under load uncertainty.Experimental brain research · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans employ anticipatory muscle activation when catching under conditions of load uncertainty. Questions addressed were (a) on what information referent do catchers base their anticipatory neuromotor control when catching balls of unknown weight?, and (b) how do catchers use this functional referent? Thirty-six participants caught visually identical balls dropped from 0.75 m. Participants performed 40 trials, half with knowledge of ball weight and half without. Group L caught balls with a large weight range, while group S caught balls with a smaller range of weights. EMG integrals were computed for the ball flight period in five muscles. Anticipatory EMG integrals in the unknown weight condition were normalized to anticipatory EMG integrals for the maximum, minimum and average ball weights in the known ball weight condition. We assumed participants would base anticipatory control in the unknown weight condition on similar information, regardless of group. Therefore, differences in normalized EMG integrals between groups L and S would suggest that the specific referent tested (e.g., minimum possible ball weight) was not used to scale anticipatory muscle activation under load uncertainty. Independent sample t tests ascertained differences in normalized EMG integrals between groups L and S. The results suggested that the information referent participants used to catch balls of an unknown weight was knowledge of the maximum ball weight. Participants used this referent to generate a submaximal level of anticipatory muscle activation, i.e., about 93.2% of that used to catch the heaviest ball when ball weight was known in advance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32306063What 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.