ArticleScientific reports2022
Characterisation of visual guidance of steering to intercept targets following curving trajectories using Qualitative Inconsistency Detection.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Angle-of-approach and reversal-movement effects in lateral manual interception.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Visuomotor predictors of interception.PloS one · 2024Article
- Timing of steering actions in locomotor interception of targets following curving trajectories.Journal of vision · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study explored the informational variables guiding steering behaviour in a locomotor interception task with targets moving along circular trajectories. Using a new method of analysis focussing on the temporal co-evolution of steering behaviour and the potential information sources driving it, we set out to invalidate reliance on plausible informational candidates. Applied to individual trials rather than ensemble averages, this Qualitative Inconsistency Detection (QuID) method revealed that steering behaviour was not compatible with reliance on information grounded in any type of change in the agent-centred target-heading angle. First-order changes in the environment-centred target's bearing angle could also not adequately account for the variations in behaviour observed under the different experimental conditions. Capturing the observed timing of unfolding steering behaviour ultimately required a combination of (velocity-based) first-order and (acceleration-based) second-order changes in bearing angle. While this result may point to reliance on fractional-order based changes in bearing angle, the overall importance of the present findings resides in the demonstration of the necessity to break away from the existing practice of trying to fit behaviour into a priori postulated functional strategies based on categorical differences between operative heuristic rules or control laws.
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.