ArticleScientific reports2022
Neurophysiology of movement inhibition during full body reaching.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Lateral habenula and periaqueductal gray neurons signal reward prediction error and continuity of reward expectancy to drive reward-seeking behavior.Cell reports · 2026Article
- Periaqueductal gray passes over disappointment and signals continuity of remaining reward expectancy.Research square · 2025Article
- Concomitant motor responses facilitate the acquisition of multiple prior distributions in human coincidence timing.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Periaqueductal gray passes over disappointment and signals continuity of remaining reward expectancy.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Our current understanding of response inhibition comes from go/no-go studies that draw conclusions based on the overt movement of single limbs (i.e., a single finger pushing a button). In general, go/no-go paradigms have found that an individual's ability to correctly inhibit the motor system is indicative of a healthy central nervous system. However, measuring inhibition by an overt behavioral response may lack the sensitivity to conclude whether the motor system is completely inhibited. Therefore, our goal was to use behavioral and neurophysiological measures to investigate inhibition of the motor system during a full-body reaching task. When directly comparing neurophysiological and behavioral measures, we found that neurophysiological measures were associated with a greater number of errors during no-go trials and faster onset times during go trials. Further analyses revealed a negative correlation between errors and onset times, such that the muscles that activated the earliest during go trials also had the greatest number of errors during no-go trials. Together, our observations show that the absence of an overt behavioral response does not always translate to total inhibition of the motor system.
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.