ArticlePloS one2021
Perception and prediction of the putting distance of robot putting movements under different visual/viewing conditions.
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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine, whether and under which conditions humans are able to predict the putting distance of a robotic device. Based on the "flash-lag effect" (FLE) it was expected that the prediction errors increase with increasing putting velocity. Furthermore, we hypothesized that the predictions are more accurate and more confident if human observers operate under full vision (F-RCHB) compared to either temporal occlusion (I-RCHB) or spatial occlusion (invisible ball, F-RHC, or club, F-B). In two experiments, 48 video sequences of putt movements performed by a BioRob robot arm were presented to thirty-nine students (age: 24.49±3.20 years). In the experiments, video sequences included six putting distances (1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 m; experiment 1) under full versus incomplete vision (F-RCHB versus I-RCHB) and three putting distances (2. 0, 3.0, and 4.0 m; experiment 2) under the four visual conditions (F-RCHB, I-RCHB, F-RCH, and F-B). After the presentation of each video sequence, the participants estimated the putting distance on a scale from 0 to 6 m and provided their confidence of prediction on a 5-point scale. Both experiments show comparable results for the respective dependent variables (error and confidence measures). The participants consistently overestimated the putting distance under the full vision conditions; however, the experiments did not show a pattern that was consistent with the FLE. Under the temporal occlusion condition, a prediction was not possible; rather a random estimation pattern was found around the centre of the prediction scale (3 m). Spatial occlusion did not affect errors and confidence of prediction. The experiments indicate that temporal constraints seem to be more critical than spatial constraints. The FLE may not apply to distance prediction compared to location estimation.
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.