Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39331027›Full record

ArticleeLife2024

Task-dependent coarticulation of movement sequences.

Hari Teja Kalidindi, Frederic Crevecoeur

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Motor Sequence Learning Involves Better Prediction of the Next Action and Optimization of Movement Trajectories.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
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.

Hari Teja KalidindiInstitute for Information and Communication Technologies, Electronics and Applied Mathematics (ICTEAM), Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2634-7953
Frederic CrevecoeurInstitute for Information and Communication Technologies, Electronics and Applied Mathematics (ICTEAM), Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1147-1153

Funding

Fonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS FC 036239Fonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS FC 043127
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Combining individual actions into sequences is a hallmark of everyday activities. Classical theories propose that the motor system forms a single specification of the sequence as a whole, leading to the coarticulation of the different elements. In contrast, recent neural recordings challenge this idea and suggest independent execution of each element specified separately. Here, we show that separate or coarticulated sequences can result from the same task-dependent controller, without implying different representations in the brain. Simulations show that planning for multiple reaches simultaneously allows separate or coarticulated sequences depending on instructions about intermediate goals. Human experiments in a two-reach sequence task validated this model. Furthermore, in co-articulated sequences, the second goal influenced long-latency stretch responses to external loads applied during the first reach, demonstrating the involvement of the sensorimotor network supporting fast feedback control. Overall, our study establishes a computational framework for sequence production that highlights the importance of feedback control in this essential motor skill.

Indexed as

MovementAdultFemaleHumansMaleMotor SkillsPsychomotor PerformanceYoung Adultflexible motor controlhumanlong latency reflexmotor sequencesmotor skill learningneuroscienceoptimal feedback controlstretch reflex

Identifiers

PMID39331027
PMCPMC11434614

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.