ArticleScientific reports2021
Sensorimotor strategy selection under time constraints in the presence of two motor targets with different values.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive use of environmental regularities requires action relevance.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Motor actions across psychiatric disorders: A research domain criteria (RDoC) perspective.Clinical psychology review · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Goal-directed movements often require choosing an option from multiple potential goals under time constraints. However, there are limited studies on how humans change their time spent on decision-making and movement patterns according to time constraints. Here, we examined how sensorimotor strategies are selected under time constraints when the target values are uncertain. In the double-target condition, the values were uncertain until the movement onset and presented immediately afterwards. The behavior in this condition was compared to the single-target condition, in relation to time constraints and target-separation-angles. The results showed that the participants frequently used the choice-reaction even under tight time constraints, and their performance was consistently lower than that in the single-target condition. Additionally, in the double-target condition, differences in the movement trajectory depending on the time constraint and target-separation angle were confirmed. Specifically, the longer the time constraint, the higher the frequency of the intermediate behavior (to initiate movement toward the intermediate direction of two targets) or the change-of-mind behavior (to change the aiming target during movement). Furthermore, the smaller the target-separation angle, the higher the frequency of intermediate behavior, but the frequency of change-of-mind was not affected by the target-separation angle. These results suggest that the participants initiated the movement at an incomplete value judgment stage in some trials. Furthermore, they seemed to select a strategy to utilize the information obtained during the movement, taking into account the time constraints and target-separation angle. Our results show a consistent cognitive bias in choosing a higher value when multiple alternatives have different values. Additionally, we also suggest flexibility and adaptability in the movement patterns in response to time constraints.
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.