ArticlePloS one2021
Short-term upper limb immobilization and the embodied view of memory: A pilot study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to explore the contribution of the manual sensorimotor system to the memory of graspable objects. Participants in the experimental group underwent a short-term upper limb immobilization design to decrease arousal to their dominant hand. Such designs are known to elicit updating of sensorimotor representations and to hardened use of implicit motor simulation, a process that occurs when observing graspable objects. Subsequently, a free recall and a recognition task of graspable and non-graspable objects took place. We found slower recognition for graspable than for non-graspable objects in the control group, while no differences appeared for the immobilized group. Moreover, the recognition latency for graspable objects tended to be slower for the control than for the immobilized group. These results suggest that a time demanding reactivation of motor simulation is elicited when a graspable object is correctly recognized by control participants. The effect of immobilization could prevent this reactivation, leading to faster recognition. Hence, immobilization selectively affects graspable object memory, showing a close relationship with the manual sphere of the sensorimotor system. We suggest that recognition accuracy would probably be affected in cases of stronger disruption of sensorimotor arousal.
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.