ArticleExperimental brain research2022
Motor planning is not restricted to only one hemisphere: evidence from ERPs in individuals with hemiplegic cerebral palsy.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evidence for the hemispheric specialization of motor planning reveals several inconsistencies between the left-lateralized hypothesis and a distributed system across the hemispheres. We compared participants with left hemiplegic cerebral palsy (HCP) to right-handed control subjects in this study's first experiment by inviting them to perform a motor planning task. Participants were required to release the start button, grasp a hexagon, and rotate it according to the instructions. In the second experiment, we compared left-HCP subjects with right-HCP subjects inviting them to perform the same task (we used the data for left-HCP subjects from the first experiment). P2 amplitude, as well as planning time, grasping time, releasing time, and initial grip selection planning patterns, were used as outcome measures in both experiments. The first experiment revealed that controls acted more quickly and chose more effective planning patterns. Also, the P2 amplitude was smaller in left-HCP subjects than in control subjects. No significant group effect was observed in the second experiment for any movement-related measure or P2. At the neural level, however, there was an interaction between 'region' and 'group,' indicating the distinction between the two groups in the right region. The results are discussed in terms of motor planning's hemispheric distribution and individual differences in the HCP group.
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.