ArticlePsychological research2024
Motion perception in touch: resolving contradictory findings by varying probabilities of different trial types.
Article in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Representational momentum beyond the target?Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- No error on the side of safety: No representational momentum for auditory looming stimuli.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Not proportional after all: Investigating speed perception with the beep-speed illusion.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Motion perception in touch: resolving contradictory findings by varying probabilities of different trial types.Psychological research · 2024Article
- Need for (expected) speed: Exploring the indirect influence of trial type consistency on representational momentum.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Representational momentum describes the typical overestimation of the final location of a moving stimulus in the direction of stimulus motion. While systematically observed in different sensory modalities, especially vision and audition, in touch, empirical findings indicate a mixed pattern of results, with some published studies suggesting the existence of the phenomenon, while others do not. In the present study, one possible moderating variable, the relative probabilities of different trial types, was explored in an attempt to resolve the seemingly contradictory findings in the literature. In some studies, only consistently moving target stimuli were presented and no representational momentum was observed, while other studies have included inconsistently moving target stimuli in the same experimental block, and observed representational momentum. Therefore, the present study was designed to systematically compare the localization of consistent target motion stimuli across two experimental blocks, for which either only consistent motion trials were presented, or else mixed with inconsistent target motion trials. The results indicate a strong influence of variations in the probability of different trial types on the occurrence of representational momentum. That is, representational momentum only occurred when both trial types (inconsistent and consistent target motion) were presented within one experimental block. The results are discussed in light of recent theoretical advancements in the literature, namely the speed prior account of motion perception.
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.