ArticleExperimental brain research2023
A motor plan is accessible for voluntary initiation and involuntary triggering at similar short latencies.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dissociable habits of response preparation versus response initiation.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Startling acoustic stimuli hasten reflexive choice reaching tasks by enhancing, but not changing the timing of, express visuomotor responses.The Journal of physiology · 2025Article
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
Movement goals are an essential component of motor planning, altering voluntary and involuntary motor actions. While there have been many studies of motor planning, it is unclear if motor goals influence voluntary and involuntary movements at similar latencies. The objectives of this study were to determine how long it takes to prepare a motor action and to compare this time for voluntary and involuntary movements. We hypothesized a prepared motor action would influence voluntarily and involuntarily initiated movements at the same latency. We trained subjects to reach with a forced reaction time paradigm and used a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) to trigger involuntary initiation of the same reaches. The time available to prepare was controlled by varying when one of four reach targets was presented. Reach direction was used to evaluate accuracy. We quantified the time between target presentation and the cue or trigger for movement initiation. We found that reaches were accurately initiated when the target was presented 48 ms before the SAS and 162 ms before the cue to voluntarily initiate movement. While the SAS precisely controlled the latency of movement onset, voluntary reach onset was more variable. We, therefore, quantified the time between target presentation and movement onset and found no significant difference in the time required to plan reaches initiated voluntarily or involuntarily (∆ = 8 ms, p = 0.2). These results demonstrate that the time required to plan accurate reaches is similar regardless of if they are initiated voluntarily or triggered involuntarily. This finding may inform the understanding of neural pathways governing storage and access of motor plans.
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.