Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40238136›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2025

Visual factors that determine sensory uncertainty in rapid interceptive hand movements.

Abibat A Akande, Philipp Kreyenmeier, Miriam Spering

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Abibat A AkandeDepartment of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Philipp KreyenmeierDepartment of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Miriam SperingDepartment of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tracking and intercepting a moving object requires predicting its trajectory, an ability that depends on the reliability of the available motion information. We investigated two common sources that limit the reliability (certainty) of visual motion information during laboratory object interception: how long an object is shown and how long it is occluded. A simulated flyball was shown briefly on a screen and then occluded before it entered a hit zone. Observers tracked the trajectory of the ball with their eyes and intercepted it in the hit zone with a rapid pointing movement. In a two-part experiment, we either varied the presentation of the ball or occlusion duration. Short presentation duration produced a strong center bias in hand movements, but long occlusion duration yielded only a weak center bias. Whereas the center bias merely improved with long presentation durations, it was fully resolved when occlusion duration was short. These findings indicate that sensorimotor decisions under uncertainty might have to rely more on priors when an object is presented briefly versus when it is occluded for longer periods. Eye and hand movement accuracy were correlated across levels of uncertainty, confirming that predictive processes guiding these effectors share a common readout of motion information.

Indexed as

HandMotion PerceptionPsychomotor PerformanceAdultEye MovementsFemaleHumansMaleMovementPhotic StimulationUncertaintyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40238136
PMCPMC12011126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.