Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40408120›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2025

Visuomotor adaptation to constant and varying delays in a target acquisition task.

Sam Beech, Danaë Stanton Fraser, Iain D Gilchrist

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. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Sam BeechSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Danaë Stanton FraserDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Iain D GilchristSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In visually guided movement tasks, visual feedback delays disrupt visuomotor control and impair performance. Adaptation then occurs as compensatory visuomotor updates are generated to accommodate the delay and recover control. Following the removal of the delay, an after-effect is observed, where the retention of this visuomotor update impairs post-exposure performance relative to the pre-exposure baseline. Although adaptation has previously been explored in response to constant delays, there has been no investigation into how continuously varying delays affect adaptation. In this experiment, participants completed a mouse-based target acquisition task with either a constant or varying delay between the mouse and cursor movements. At first exposure to the delays, completion times were large, and both delay conditions frequently overshot the target. With repeated exposure, the precision of the movements improved, resulting in lower completion times and fewer overshoots. The constant and varying delay conditions showed similar rates of change throughout the exposure phase, suggesting similar adaptation rates. Following the removal of the delay, the two delay conditions demonstrated similar post-exposure after-effects, as they systematically undershot the target and showed a decrease in overshooting relative to the pre-exposure baseline. Despite delay variability imposing an unstable error signal between the expected and actual cursor locations, this did not disrupt adaptation. These results suggest that the participants in the varying delay condition adapted to the mean delay and that the fluctuations away from this value did not disrupt the generation of the visuomotor updates.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalFeedback, SensoryPsychomotor PerformanceVisual PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleMovementPhotic StimulationReaction TimeTime FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40408120
PMCPMC12118507

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.