Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37669857›Full record

ArticleeNeuro2023

How Does Temporal Blurring Alter Movement Timing?

Dominika Drążyk, Marcus Missal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eNeuro, 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.

Dominika DrążykInstitute of Neurosciences (IONS), Cognition and System (COSY), Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels 1200, Belgium.
Marcus MissalInstitute of Neurosciences (IONS), Cognition and System (COSY), Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels 1200, Belgium marcus.missal@uclouvain.be.ORCID 0000-0002-0157-8694

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Subjective uncertainty arises because the estimation of the timing of an event into the future is error prone. This impact of stimulus-bound uncertainty on movement preparation has often been investigated using reaction time tasks where a warning stimulus (WS) predicts the occurrence of a "go" signal. The timing of the "go" signal can be chosen from a particular probability distribution with a given variance or uncertainty. It has been repeatedly shown that reaction times covary with the shape of the used "go" signal distribution. This is interpreted as evidence for temporal preparation. Moreover, the variance of the response time should always increase with the duration of the delay between the WS and the "go" signal. This increasing variance has been interpreted as a consequence of the temporal "blurring" of future events (scalar expectancy). The present paper tested the validity of the temporal "blurring" hypothesis in humans with a simple oculomotor reaction time task where subjective and stimulus-bound uncertainties were increased. Subjective uncertainty about the timing of a "go" signal was increased by lengthening the delay between the WS and the "go" signal. Objective uncertainty was altered by increasing the variance of "go" signal timing. Contrary to temporal blurring hypotheses, the study has shown that increasing the delay between events did not significantly increase movement timing variability. These results suggest that temporal blurring could not be a property of movement timing in an implicit timing context.

Indexed as

MovementHumansProbabilityReaction TimeUncertaintyanticipationeye movementshazard ratetemporal cognitiontemporal expectation

Identifiers

PMID37669857
PMCPMC10500974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.