ArticleCommunications biology2022
Compensative movement ameliorates reduced efficacy of rapidly-embodied decisions in humans.
Article in Communications biology, 2022. 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.
- The continuous dynamics of planning and acting in a virtually embodied task.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Concomitant motor responses facilitate the acquisition of multiple timing priors beyond upper-limb contexts.iScience · 2026Article
- Article
- 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dynamic environments, such as sports, often demand rapid decision-making and motor execution. The concept of embodied decision refers to the mutual link between both processes, but little is known about how these processes are balanced under severe time constraints. We address this problem by using a baseball-like hitting paradigm with and without Go/No-go judgment; participants were required to hit (Go) a moving target in the strike area or not to hit (No-go) other targets. We found that Go/No-go judgments were effective with regard to task performance, but efficacy was lost below the time constraint of 0.5 seconds mainly due to a reduction in judgment accuracy rather than movement accuracy. However, either slowing movement initiation in Go trials or canceling the movement in progress in No-go trials improved judgment accuracy. Our findings suggest that embodied decision efficacy is limited in split-second periods, but compensation is possible by changing ongoing movement strategies.
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.