ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Which factors influence plan reuse in a sequential posture selection task?
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a sequential posture selection task, we reuse former motor plans to reduce cognitive planning cost. The resulting persistence in the former posture, termed motor hysteresis, can serve as a proxy for the percentage of motor plan reuse (PoR). A recent study showed a significant drop in PoR if participants were asked to skip every second drawer in a sequential drawer opening task. In the current study, we sought to disentangle four confounded factors that were potentially responsible for this drop in PoR: a change of (1) spatial distance, (2) digit distance, (3) number of drawers, or (4) context (presence of skipped drawers). To this end, two groups of participants were tested in a series of sequential drawer tasks, where each of the four potential influencing factors was varied independently. PoR was calculated as the dependent variable. Participants displayed a hysteresis effect in all ordered tasks, but the PoR was only reduced by an increase in spatial distance. The three remaining factors had no significant effect. This finding indicates that motor planning is only affected by local (spatial) parameters of the task, but not by context factors (digits, skipped drawers) or global parameters such as the number of drawers.
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.