ArticleScientific reports2023
Temporal hierarchy of observed goal-directed actions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Empathic Dimensions Influence Motor Resonance Magnitude During Transitive but Not Intransitive Action Observation: A Retrospective Investigation.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Disentangling dynamic information and temporal order processing of human action perception.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Neuroadaptive changes in brain structural-functional coupling among pilots.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Exploring the Relationship between Abnormal Communication Efficiency of Cerebral Cortex and Multiple Cognitive Functions in Mild Subcortical Stroke: A Resting-State fMRI Study.Brain sciences · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During social interactions, we continuously integrate current and previous information over varying timescales to infer other people's action intentions. Motor cognition theories argue for a hierarchical organization of goal-directed actions based on temporal scales. Accordingly, transient motor primitives are represented at lower levels of the hierarchy, a combination of primitives building motor sequences at subordinate levels, and more stable overarching action goals at superordinate levels. A neural topography of hierarchal timescales for information accumulation was previously shown in the visual and auditory domains. However, whether such a temporal hierarchy can also account for observed goal-directed action representations in motor pathways remains to be determined. Thus, the current study examined the neural architecture underlying the processing of observed goal-directed actions using inter-subject correlation (ISC) of fMRI activity. Observers (n = 24) viewed sequential hand movements presented in their intact order or piecewise scrambled at three timescales pertaining to goal-directed action evolution (Primitives: ± 1.5 s, Sub-Goals: ± 4 s, and High-Goals: ± 10 s). The results revealed differential intrinsic temporal capacities for integrating goal-directed action information across brain areas engaged in action observation. Longer timescales (> ± 10 s) were found in the posterior parietal and dorsal premotor compared to the ventral premotor (± 4 s) and anterior parietal (± 1.5 s) cortex. Moreover, our results revealed a hemispheric bias with more extended timescales in the right MT+, primary somatosensory, and early visual cortices compared to their homotopic regions in the left hemisphere. Our findings corroborate a hierarchical neural mapping of observed actions based on temporal scales of goals and provide further support for a ubiquitous time-dependent neural organization of information processing across multiple modalities.
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.