Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34799622›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Different contributions of efferent and reafferent feedback to sensorimotor temporal recalibration.

Belkis Ezgi Arikan, Bianca M van Kemenade, Katja Fiehler, Tilo Kircher, Knut Drewing, Benjamin Straube

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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Belkis Ezgi ArikanExperimental Psychology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Otto-Behaghel Strasse 10F, 35394, Giessen, Germany. arikan.ezgi@gmail.com.
Bianca M van KemenadeInstitute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow, 62 Hillhead Street, Glasgow, G12 8QB, UK.
Katja FiehlerExperimental Psychology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Otto-Behaghel Strasse 10F, 35394, Giessen, Germany.
Tilo KircherCenter for Mind, Brain and Behavior (CMBB), Philipps University Marburg and Justus Liebig University Giessen, Hans-Meerwein-Strasse 6, 35032, Marburg, Germany.
Knut Drewing *Experimental Psychology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Otto-Behaghel Strasse 10F, 35394, Giessen, Germany.
Benjamin Straube *Center for Mind, Brain and Behavior (CMBB), Philipps University Marburg and Justus Liebig University Giessen, Hans-Meerwein-Strasse 6, 35032, Marburg, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 222641018 - SFB/TRR 135Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft KE 2016/2-1Horizon 2020 964464
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adaptation to delays between actions and sensory feedback is important for efficiently interacting with our environment. Adaptation may rely on predictions of action-feedback pairing (motor-sensory component), or predictions of tactile-proprioceptive sensation from the action and sensory feedback of the action (inter-sensory component). Reliability of temporal information might differ across sensory feedback modalities (e.g. auditory or visual), which in turn influences adaptation. Here, we investigated the role of motor-sensory and inter-sensory components on sensorimotor temporal recalibration for motor-auditory (button press-tone) and motor-visual (button press-Gabor patch) events. In the adaptation phase of the experiment, action-feedback pairs were presented with systematic temporal delays (0 ms or 150 ms). In the subsequent test phase, audio/visual feedback of the action were presented with variable delays. The participants were then asked whether they detected a delay. To disentangle motor-sensory from inter-sensory component, we varied movements (active button press or passive depression of button) at adaptation and test. Our results suggest that motor-auditory recalibration is mainly driven by the motor-sensory component, whereas motor-visual recalibration is mainly driven by the inter-sensory component. Recalibration transferred from vision to audition, but not from audition to vision. These results indicate that motor-sensory and inter-sensory components contribute to recalibration in a modality-dependent manner.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalFeedback, SensoryPsychomotor PerformanceAcoustic StimulationAdultAuditory PerceptionCalibrationFeedbackFemaleHumansMaleModels, StatisticalMotor SkillsMovementNeurons, EfferentNormal Distribution

Identifiers

PMID34799622
PMCPMC8604902

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.