ArticleFrontiers in integrative neuroscience2024
Differential contributions of body form, motion, and temporal information to subjective action understanding in naturalistic stimuli.
Article in Frontiers in integrative neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of novel naturalistic limb movement stimuli for studying biological motion perception in adults.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Disentangling dynamic information and temporal order processing of human action perception.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We investigated the factors underlying naturalistic action recognition and understanding, as well as the errors occurring during recognition failures. Methods: Participants saw full-light stimuli of ten different whole-body actions presented in three different conditions: as normal videos, as videos with the temporal order of the frames scrambled, and as single static representative frames. After each stimulus presentation participants completed one of two tasks-a forced choice task where they were given the ten potential action labels as options, or a free description task, where they could describe the action performed in each stimulus in their own words. Results: While generally, a combination of form, motion, and temporal information led to the highest action understanding, for some actions form information was sufficient and adding motion and temporal information did not increase recognition accuracy. We also analyzed errors in action recognition and found primarily two different types. Discussion: One type of error was on the semantic level, while the other consisted of reverting to the kinematic level of body part processing without any attribution of semantics. We elaborate on these results in the context of naturalistic action perception.
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.