ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2020
Programming of action timing cannot be completed until immediately prior to initiation of the response to be controlled.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Sequential Kicks on Programming Time and Movement Time in Taekwondo.Journal of human kinetics · 2025Article
- Working memory involvement in action planning does not include timing initiation structure.Psychological research · 2024Review
- The influence of foreperiod duration on the preparation and control of sequential aiming movements.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024Article
- Slowed reaction times in cognitive fatigue are not attributable to declines in motor preparation.Experimental brain research · 2022Article
- A Theoretical Framework for Human and Nonhuman Vocal Interaction.Annual review of neuroscience · 2022Review
- An adaptive paradigm for detecting the individual duration of the preparatory period in the choice reaction time task.PloS one · 2022Article
- Response triggering by an acoustic stimulus increases with stimulus intensity and is best predicted by startle reflex activation.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Central nervous system physiology.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2021Review
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
We consider, in depth, findings from across 6 decades regarding generating a motor response in a simple reaction-time (i.e., delayed response) paradigm. The early results robustly show a response complexity effect whereby the more response elements, the longer the simple reaction time (RT). This effect is puzzling because it indicates that preparation of some aspect of a response cannot be completed prior to the simple RT interval even though a precue had identified the response in advance. Results obtained during the past 10 years indicate that this finding reflects a restriction in advance preparation of the code that controls timing of the onsets for elements making up the response. This code cannot be prepared prior to the simple RT interval even though the parameters to be achieved by the response can be established earlier so that the difficulty of their selection does not influence RT. The general principle that emerges from these studies is that the abstract goal for a response can be determined in advance, but programming of action timing cannot be completed until immediately prior to initiation of the response to be controlled. We suggest that this restriction may arise because limitations in working memory prevent temporary storage of the timing code even though the abstract response goal can be stored until needed. Regardless of its origin, the limitation regarding preparation of response timing represents a fundamental feature in control of motor action.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32514798What 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.