ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2025
Differential Effects of Self-Initiated, Externally Triggered, and Passive Movements on Action-Outcome Processing: Insights From Sensory and Motor-Preparatory Event Related Potentials.
Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 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.
- Differential Effects of Self-Initiated, Externally Triggered, and Passive Movements on Action-Outcome Processing: Insights From Sensory and Motor-Preparatory Event Related Potentials.The European journal of 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Self-initiated voluntary actions are different from externally triggered or passive movements. However, it remains unclear how these movements affect action feedback processing and how they are prepared. Here, we focus on the sensory and motor-preparatory event-related potentials. Participants made active (self-initiated, 700 ms lower limit), quick (respond to a cue as quickly as possible), and passive (finger moved by device) button presses that triggered visual stimuli. The active and quick conditions elicited lower visual N1-P2 peak-to-peak amplitudes than the passive condition but did not significantly differ from each other. For prestimulus ERPs (lateralized/readiness potential; L/RP), all conditions showed a negative shift in RP, with lower amplitudes in the quick than in the active condition. There were no significant differences between active and passive. For the LRP, the active and quick conditions showed a sharp deflection shortly before the button press. The amplitude of both conditions was significantly lower than passive around 100 ms before the movement. Our results suggest that active and quick movements involve similar feedback prediction, even though they are prepared differently. They thus offer a finer-grained specification of the efference copy mechanism.
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.