Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38294530›Full record

ReviewPsychological research2024

The complex interplay between perception, cognition, and action: a commentary on Bach et al. 2022.

Helen O'Shea, Judith Bek

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Helen O'SheaSchool of Psychology, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Judith BekSchool of Psychology, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland. Judith.Bek@ucd.ie.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bach (Psychological Research 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01773-w ) offer a re-conceptualisation of motor imagery, influenced by older ideas of ideomotor action and formulated in terms of action effects rather than motor output. We share the view of an essential role of action effect in action planning and motor imagery processes, but we challenge the claim that motor imagery is non-motoric in nature. In the present article, we critically review some of Bach et al.'s proposed ideas and pose questions of whether effect and motor processes are functionally separable, and if not, what mechanisms underlie motor imagery and what terminology best captures its function.

Indexed as

CognitionImaginationHumansMotor ActivityPerceptionPsychomotor Performance

Identifiers

PMID38294530
PMCPMC11315796

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.