ArticleExperimental brain research2021
Grasping performance depends upon the richness of hand feedback.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preventing visual feedback of the moving limb during grasping preferentially activates parietofrontal premotor areas.NeuroImage · 2026Article
- Quantifying Hand Strength and Isometric Pinch Individuation Using a Flexible Pressure Sensor Grid.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although visual feedback of the hand allows fast and accurate grasping actions, little is known about whether the nature of feedback of the hand affects performance. We investigated kinematics during precision grasping (with the index finger and thumb) when participants received different levels of hand feedback, with or without visual feedback of the target. Specifically, we compared performance when participants saw (1) no hand feedback; (2) only the two critical points on the index finger and thumb tips; (3) 21 points on all digit tips and hand joints; (4) 21 points connected by a "skeleton", or (5) full feedback of the hand wearing a glove. When less hand feedback was available, participants took longer to execute the movement because they allowed more time to slow the reach and close the hand. When target feedback was unavailable, participants took longer to plan the movement and reached with higher velocity. We were particularly interested in investigating maximum grip aperture (MGA), which can reflect the margin of error that participants allow to compensate for uncertainty. A trend suggested that MGA was smallest when ample feedback was available (skeleton and full hand feedback, regardless of target feedback) and when only essential information about hand and target was provided (2-point hand feedback + target feedback) but increased when non-essential points were included (21-point feedback). These results suggest that visual feedback of the hand affects grasping performance and that, while more feedback is usually beneficial, this is not necessarily always the case.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33403432What 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.