ArticleBrain sciences2021
Online Movement Correction in Response to the Unexpectedly Perturbed Initial or Final Action Goals: An ERP and sLORETA Study.
Article in Brain sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does the stop-signal P3 reflect inhibitory control?Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2025Review
- Cortical changes associated with an anterior cruciate ligament injury may retrograde skilled kicking in football: preliminary EEG findings.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- An Event-Related Potential Study on Differences Between Higher and Lower Easy of Learning Judgments: Evidence for the Ease-of-Processing Hypothesis.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Neurons in Primary Motor Cortex Encode External Perturbations during an Orientation Reaching Task.Brain sciences · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this experiment, we explored how unexpected perturbations in the initial (grip posture) and the final action goals (target position) influence movement execution and the neural mechanisms underlying the movement corrections. Participants were instructed to grasp a handle and rotate it to a target position according to a given visual cue. After participants started their movements, a secondary cue was triggered, which indicated whether the initial or final goals had changed (or not) while the electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded. The results showed that the perturbed initial goals significantly slowed down the reaching action, compared to the perturbed final goals. In the event-related potentials (ERPs), a larger anterior P3 and a larger central-distributed late positivity (600-700 ms) time-locked to the perturbations were found for the initial than for the final goal perturbations. Source analyses found stronger left middle frontal gyrus (MFG) activations for the perturbed initial goals than for the perturbed final goals in the P3 time window. These findings suggest that perturbations in the initial goals have stronger interferences with the execution of grasp-to-rotate movements than perturbations in the final goals. The interferences seem to be derived from both inappropriate action inhibitions and new action implementations during the movement correction.
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.