Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37552269›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2023

Knowing your boundaries: no effect of tool-use on body representation following a gather-and-sort task.

Joshua D Bell, Kristen L Macuga

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

Joshua D BellSchool of Psychological Science, Oregon State University, 2950 SW Jefferson Dr., Reed Lodge, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA. joshua.bell@oregonstate.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9958-3549
Kristen L MacugaSchool of Psychological Science, Oregon State University, 2950 SW Jefferson Dr., Reed Lodge, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Internal representations of the body have received considerable attention in recent years, particularly in the context of tool-use. Results have supported the notion that these representations are plastic and tool-use engenders an extension of the internal representation of the arm. However, the limitations of the literature underlying this tool embodiment process have not been adequately considered or tested. For example, there is some evidence that tool-use effects do not extend beyond simplistic tool-use tasks. To further clarify this issue, 66 participants engaged in a period of tool-augmented reaches in a speeded gather-and-sort task. If task characteristics inherent to simplistic tasks are relevant to putative embodiment effects, it was predicted that there would be no effect of tool-use on tactile distance judgments or forearm bisections. A Bayesian analysis found considerable support for the null hypothesis in both outcome measures, suggesting that some of the evidence for tool embodiment may be based in task characteristics inherent in the narrow range of tool-use tasks used to study them, rather than a tool incorporation process. Potential sources of influence stemming from these characteristics are discussed.

Indexed as

Tool Use BehaviorTouch PerceptionBayes TheoremBody ImageHumansTouchBody schemaMotor controlPerceptionPlasticityTool embodimentTool-use

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.