ArticleScientific reports2022
Multi-sensory feedback improves spatially compatible sensori-motor responses.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To interact with machines, from computers to cars, we need to monitor multiple sensory stimuli, and respond to them with specific motor actions. It has been shown that our ability to react to a sensory stimulus is dependent on both the stimulus modality, as well as the spatial compatibility of the stimulus and the required response. However, the compatibility effects have been examined for sensory modalities individually, and rarely for scenarios requiring individuals to choose from multiple actions. Here, we compared response time of participants when they had to choose one of several spatially distinct, but compatible, responses to visual, tactile or simultaneous visual and tactile stimuli. We observed that the presence of both tactile and visual stimuli consistently improved the response time relative to when either stimulus was presented alone. While we did not observe a difference in response times of visual and tactile stimuli, the spatial stimulus localization was observed to be faster for visual stimuli compared to tactile stimuli.
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.