ArticlePsychological research2025
Exploring the effects of mapping rule switching on motor preparation in young and older adults: evidence from combining response cuing and task switching methodology.
Article in Psychological research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study explored the effect of mapping rule switching on motor preparation in young and older adults. Motor preparation was indexed by performance in the finger cuing task, which is a cued 4-choice reaction time (RT) task requiring a single keypress with 1 of 4 fingers (index and middle fingers of both hands). Mapping rule switching required switching between two possible mapping rules implemented via spatially compatible procues and spatially incompatible anticues. These informative cues preceded the target signal at five different time intervals (100-850 ms) to assess the temporal dynamics of preparatory control relative to a non-informative (control) cue. In the single-mapping condition, procues and anticues were administered in separate trial blocks. In the mixed-mapping condition, procues and anticues were randomly intermixed, with a mapping rule cue appearing at trial onset. Analyses of (absolute) RTs and (proportional) cuing effects in single-mapping and mixed-mapping conditions revealed greater preparation benefits for procues than anticues (only at short preparation intervals), and smaller preparation benefits for older than younger adults (only at longer preparation intervals). In both age groups, switching between mapping rules in the mixed-mapping condition created mixing costs (relative to single-mapping), reflecting substantial deficits in motor preparation, and more so at longer preparation intervals where proactive control dominates. These findings reveal a strong impact of mapping rule switching on motor preparation. We propose that activating a new mapping rule and preparing an action both require updating operations in working memory that bias response selection mechanisms.
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.