ArticleBrain sciences2023
Optimizing Movement Performance with Altered Sensation: An Examination of Multisensory Inputs.
Article in Brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to assess the impact of induced paresthesia on movement parameters of goal-directed aiming movements to determine how visual and auditory feedback may enhance performance when somatosensory feedback is disrupted. In both experiments, neurotypical adults performed the goal-directed aiming task in four conditions: (i) paresthesia-full vision; (ii) paresthesia-no vision; (iii) no paresthesia-full vision; (iv) no paresthesia-no vision. Targets appeared on a computer screen, vision was obscured using visual occlusion spectacles, and paresthesia was induced with a constant current stimulator. The first and last 20% of trials (early and late performance) were compared to assess adaptability to altered somatosensory input. Experiment 2 added an auditory tone that confirmed successful target acquisitions. When compared to early performance in the no-paresthesia and no-vision conditions, induced paresthesia and no vision led to significantly larger endpoint error toward the body midline in both early and late performance. This finding reveals the importance of proprioceptive input for movement accuracy in the absence of visual feedback. The kinematic results indicated that vision could not fully compensate for the disrupted proprioceptive input when participants experienced induced paresthesia. However, when auditory feedback confirmed successful aiming movements in Experiment 2, participants were able to improve their endpoint variability when experiencing induced paresthesia through changes in movement preparation.
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.