ArticlePhysiological reports2024
Force monitoring reveals single trial dynamics of motor control in a stop signal task.
Article in Physiological reports, 2024. 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.
- The Difficulty in Numerical Computation Impacts Motor Decisions in a Stop-Signal Task.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Home-Cage Training for Non-Human Primates: An Opportunity to Reduce Stress and Study Natural Behavior in Neurophysiology Experiments.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Article
- Force monitoring reveals single trial dynamics of motor control in a stop signal task.Physiological reports · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Stop Signal Task (SST) has been the benchmark for studying the behavioral and physiological basis of movement generation and inhibition. In our study, we extended the scope beyond physiological findings related to muscle activity, focusing our analysis on the initial biomechanical state of the effector. By incorporating a force sensitive resistor (FSR), we continuously monitored the force applied by the effector (here, the index finger) during a button release version of the SST. This modified task design allowed us to examine both the baseline force before the relevant Go signal was presented and during the covert state of movement preparation. Notably, variations in force over time in response to the Go signal revealed differences across trials where movement was either generated or successfully inhibited, depending on the amount of force during the baseline period. Specifically, higher baseline force was associated with a delayed movement generation, which, simultaneously slowed down the force release, facilitating successful inhibition when requested. Our results highlight the influence of biomechanical variables in movement control, which should be accounted for by the models developed for investigating the physiology of this ability.
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.