ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2022
Anticipatory action planning for stepping onto competing potential targets.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive use of environmental regularities requires action relevance.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- 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
The brain plans an anticipatory action for performing tasks successfully and effortlessly even if there are multiple possible options. There is increasing evidence that, when multiple actions are possible, the brain considers two factors when planning an anticipatory action-the probabilistic value and the action cost for each potential action. When the action involves maintaining upright balance, such as standing, stepping, or walking, the action cost for maintaining postural stability could be considered dominantly. We addressed this issue by using a "go-before-you-know" task to step onto a target on the floor. In this task, two potential targets were located on the medial or lateral side of the stepping foot, and the true target was cued only after participants shifted their loads to leave that foot. Participants initiated their stepping actions without knowing which of the potential targets would be the true one. The results showed that, for the majority of participants, lateral displacements of the center of pressure (COP) with two potential targets were similar to those when a single target exists on the individual's medial side. Given that mediolateral postural stability became more destabilized with stepping onto the medial target than stepping onto the lateral target, they were likely to plan their mediolateral components of the postural adjustments for the worst-case scenario (i.e., falling). Additionally, posterior COP movements with two potential targets became smaller than those with a single target, suggesting an effort to create extra time to determine the true target and to adjust the swing foot. Based on these findings, we concluded that action costs for maintaining postural stability were considered dominantly for planning an anticipatory action to accomplish a stepping task successfully while ensuring upright balance.
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.