Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40973470›Full record

ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2025

That's (relevant for) me: task-set-dependent brain responses to delayed visual movement feedback.

Gesche Vigh, Jakub Limanowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

2 authors.

Gesche VighFaculty of Psychology, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden 01069, Germany.
Jakub LimanowskiCenter for Tactile Internet with Human-in-the-Loop, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden 01187, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9673-5500

Funding

(CeTI) of Technische Universität DresdenCluster of Excellence 'Centre for Tactile Internet with Human-in-the-LoopFreigeist Fellowship of the VolkswagenStiftung 97-932German Research FoundationGermany's Excellence Strategy-EXC 2050/1 390696704
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bodily self-other distinction relies on the detection of (mis)matches between predicted and actual sensory movement consequences, but the brain can also use these mismatches to update its body representation. Here, we manipulated the behavioural relevance of unpredicted (delayed) visual movement feedback during functional magnetic resonance imaging. Participants matched a target oscillation with either their real, unseen hand (RH task) or with a glove-controlled virtual hand (VH task), under varying visual feedback delays. Delays were task-relevant in the VH task (requiring visuomotor adaptation) but irrelevant in the RH task. VH > RH task execution activated the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) and extrastriate visual cortex significantly more strongly. The cerebellum showed stronger overall activity and correlations with delay in the VH > RH task. Thus, the instructed behavioural relevance of delayed visual movement feedback enhanced responses of the PPC (and the cerebellum), likely for visuomotor adaptation. Activity in temporoparietal regions correlated significantly with the amount of delay-equally strongly in both tasks-suggesting a basic mechanism of visuomotor comparison. Delay changes and errors correlated with activity in the anterior insulae, more strongly so in the VH > RH task, suggesting task-set-dependent visual error processing.

Indexed as

BrainFeedback, SensoryPsychomotor PerformanceVisual PerceptionAdultBrain MappingFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMovementPhotic StimulationReaction TimeYoung Adultactionattentionself–other distinctionvirtual realityvisuomotor comparison

Identifiers

PMID40973470
PMCPMC12542506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.