ArticleJournal of vision2024
Instruction alters the influence of allocentric landmarks in a reach task.
Article in Journal of vision, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Allocentric landmarks have an implicit influence on aiming movements, but it is not clear how an explicit instruction (to aim relative to a landmark) influences reach accuracy and precision. Here, 12 participants performed a task with two instruction conditions (egocentric vs. allocentric) but with similar sensory and motor conditions. Participants fixated gaze near the center of a display aligned with their right shoulder while a target stimulus briefly appeared alongside a visual landmark in one visual field. After a brief mask/memory delay the landmark then reappeared at a different location (same or opposite visual field), creating an ego/allocentric conflict. In the egocentric condition, participants were instructed to ignore the landmark and point toward the remembered location of the target. In the allocentric condition, participants were instructed to remember the initial target location relative to the landmark and then reach relative to the shifted landmark (same or opposite visual field). To equalize motor execution between tasks, participants were instructed to anti-point (point to the visual field opposite to the remembered target) on 50% of the egocentric trials. Participants were more accurate and precise and quicker to react in the allocentric condition, especially when pointing to the opposite field. We also observed a visual field effect, where performance was worse overall in the right visual field. These results suggest that, when egocentric and allocentric cues conflict, explicit use of the visual landmark provides better reach performance than reliance on noisy egocentric signals. Such instructions might aid rehabilitation when the egocentric system is compromised by disease or injury.
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.