ArticleScientific reports2020
Accuracy of hand localization is subject-specific and improved without performance feedback.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Motor biases reflect a misalignment between visual and proprioceptive reference frames.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Individual differences in proprioception predict the extent of implicit sensorimotor adaptation.Journal of neurophysiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accumulating evidence indicates that the spatial error of human's hand localization appears subject-specific. However, whether the idiosyncratic pattern persists across time with good within-subject consistency has not been adequately examined. Here we measured the hand localization map by a Visual-matching task in multiple sessions over 2 days. Interestingly, we found that participants improved their hand localization accuracy when tested repetitively without performance feedback. Importantly, despite the reduction of average error, the spatial pattern of hand localization errors remained idiosyncratic. Based on individuals' hand localization performance, a standard convolutional neural network classifier could identify participants with good accuracy. Moreover, we did not find supporting evidence that participants' baseline hand localization performance could predict their motor performance in a visual Trajectory-matching task even though both tasks require accurate mapping of hand position to visual targets in the same workspace. Using a separate experiment, we not only replicated these findings but also ruled out the possibility that performance feedback during a few familiarization trials caused the observed improvement in hand localization. We conclude that the conventional hand localization test itself, even without feedback, can improve hand localization but leave the idiosyncrasy of hand localization map unchanged.
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.