Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33927273›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

An analytical method reduces noise bias in motor adaptation analysis.

Daniel H Blustein, Ahmed W Shehata, Erin S Kuylenstierna, Kevin B Englehart, Jonathon W Sensinger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Daniel H BlusteinDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience Program, Rhodes College, Memphis, TN, USA. blustein.neuro@gmail.com.
Ahmed W ShehataDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Erin S KuylenstiernaDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience Program, Rhodes College, Memphis, TN, USA.
Kevin B EnglehartInstitute of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada.
Jonathon W SensingerInstitute of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When a person makes a movement, a motor error is typically observed that then drives motor planning corrections on subsequent movements. This error correction, quantified as a trial-by-trial adaptation rate, provides insight into how the nervous system is operating, particularly regarding how much confidence a person places in different sources of information such as sensory feedback or motor command reproducibility. Traditional analysis has required carefully controlled laboratory conditions such as the application of perturbations or error clamping, limiting the usefulness of motor analysis in clinical and everyday environments. Here we focus on error adaptation during unperturbed and naturalistic movements. With increasing motor noise, we show that the conventional estimation of trial-by-trial adaptation increases, a counterintuitive finding that is the consequence of systematic bias in the estimate due to noise masking the learner's intention. We present an analytic solution relying on stochastic signal processing to reduce this effect of noise, producing an estimate of motor adaptation with reduced bias. The result is an improved estimate of trial-by-trial adaptation in a human learner compared to conventional methods. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the new method in analyzing simulated and empirical movement data under different noise conditions.

Identifiers

PMID33927273
PMCPMC8085004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.