Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36847427›Full record

ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2024

The influence of foreperiod duration on the preparation and control of sequential aiming movements.

Michael A Khan, Aryan Kurniawan, Madison Er Khan, Michaela Cm Khan, Kristy L Smith, Sara Scharoun Benson, Anthony N Carlsen, Gavin P Lawrence

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Michael A KhanDepartment of Kinesiology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.
Aryan KurniawanDepartment of Kinesiology, Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Madison Er KhanDepartment of Kinesiology and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Michaela Cm KhanDepartment of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Kristy L SmithDepartment of Kinesiology, Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Sara Scharoun BensonDepartment of Kinesiology, Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Anthony N CarlsenSchool of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Gavin P LawrenceInstitute for the Psychology of Elite Performance, School of Human and Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9232-6718

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reaction time (RT) and movement times (MTs) to the first target are typically longer for two-target sequential movements compared to one-target movements. While this one-target advantage has been shown to be dependent on the availability of advance information about the numbers of targets, there has been no systematic investigation of how foreperiod duration (i.e., interval between presentation of the target(s) and stimulus) influences the planning and execution of sequential movements. Two experiments were performed to examine how the one-target advantage is influenced by the availability and timing of advance target information. In Experiment 1, participants performed one- and two-target movements in two separate blocks. In Experiment 2, target conditions were randomised from trial to trial. The interval between target(s) appearing and stimulus tone (i.e., foreperiod) was varied randomly (0, 500, 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000 ms). The results of Experiment 1 revealed that while the one-target advantage in RT was not influenced by foreperiod duration, the one-target advantage in MT increased as foreperiod duration increased. The variability of endpoints at the first target was greater in the two- compared to one-target condition. In Experiment 2, the one-target advantage in both RT and MT increased as the length of the foreperiod increased. However, there was no difference in limb trajectory variability between target conditions. The implication of these findings for theories of motor planning and execution of multiple segment movements is discussed.

Indexed as

MovementPsychomotor PerformanceHumansReaction TimeTime Factorsmovement controlmovement planningresponse complexitySequential aiming movements

Identifiers

PMID36847427
PMCPMC10798029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.