ArticleScientific reports2025
Reading out bodily cues to predict interactions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Age-related differences in the weighting of kinematic and contextual information during action prediction.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Successful motor coordination in social interactions requires the rapid interpretation of others' intentions from their actions. Previous research suggests that individuals use early bodily cues, such as movement kinematics and gaze, to predict others' behaviour. However, the motor features critical for signaling or decoding potential motor interactions remain unclear. In this study, we measured the kinematics of a basic motor act - grasping an object - executed with either individualistic (to place) or social (to pass) intentions. Subsequently, we conducted two action prediction tasks to identify bodily markers of (social) intentions. Hand positioning on the object emerged as a key kinematic indicator of the intention to interact with a partner, as shown by kinematic analyses and classification of participants' responses. Eye-tracking analysis revealed the face as the most attended feature during action observation. Notably, these cues were more consistently attended to when observing actions from a frontal - second-person - perspective rather than a lateral - third-person - perspective. Our findings highlight the saliency of hand-object interactions and the face in decoding potential engagement in second-person contexts. They also provide novel evidence for social affordance processing, expressed in action execution and observation, related to potential motor interactions with others. These features in decoding potential engagement in motor interactions.
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.