ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023
Human force control may trade-off force error with central tendency and recency biases.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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, 1 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding how humans control force is useful for understanding human movement behaviors and sensorimotor control. However, it is not well understood how the human nervous system handles different control criteria such as accuracy and energetic cost. We conducted force tracking experiments where participants applied force isometrically while receiving visual force feedback, tracking step changes in target forces. The experiments were designed to disambiguate different plausible objective function components. We found that force tracking error was largely explained by a trade-off between error-reducing tendency and force biases, but we did not need to include an effort-saving tendency. Central tendency bias, which is a shift towards the center of the task distribution, and recency bias, which is a shift towards recent action, were necessary to explain many of our observations. Surprisingly, we did not observe such biases when we removed force requirements for pointing to the target, suggesting that such biases may be task-specific. This study provides insights into the broader field of motor control and human perceptions where behavioral or perceptual biases are involved.
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.