ArticleScientific reports2021
Midfrontal theta oscillation encodes haptic delay.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating haptic experience using EEG and deep learning across multiple modalities: linking stimulus and self-reports.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Oscillatory signatures of monitoring and anticipatory strategies for probabilistic vs deterministic cues.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- EEG correlates to perceived urgency elicited by vibration stimulation of the upper body.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Behavioral and Electrocortical Response to a Sensorimotor Conflict in Individuals with Fibromyalgia.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Using event-related brain potentials to evaluate motor-auditory latencies in virtual reality.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2023Article
- Midfrontal theta power encodes the value of haptic delay.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Assessment of EEG-based functional connectivity in response to haptic delay.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- An ensemble deep learning approach to evaluate haptic delay from a single trial EEG data.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Haptic technologies aim to simulate tactile or kinesthetic interactions with a physical or virtual environment in order to enhance user experience and/or performance. However, due to stringent communication and computational needs, the user experience is influenced by delayed haptic feedback. While delayed feedback is well understood in the visual and auditory modalities, little research has systematically examined the neural correlates associated with delayed haptic feedback. In this paper, we used electroencephalography (EEG) to study sensory and cognitive neural correlates caused by haptic delay during passive and active tasks performed using a haptic device and a computer screen. Results revealed that theta power oscillation was significantly higher at the midfrontal cortex under the presence of haptic delay. Sensory correlates represented by beta rebound were found to be similar in the passive task and different in the active task under the delayed and synchronous conditions. Additionally, the event related potential (ERP) P200 component is modulated under the haptic delay condition during the passive task. The P200 amplitude significantly reduced in the last 20% of trials during the passive task and in the absence of haptic delay. Results suggest that haptic delay could be associated with increased cognitive control processes including multi-sensory divided attention followed by conflict detection and resolution with an earlier detection during the active task. Additionally, haptic delay tends to generate greater perceptual attention that does not significantly decay across trials during the passive task.
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.