SynthesisFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
Negative expectations and measurable movement mechanics: a scoping review of the nocebo effect on motor performance.
Synthesis in Frontiers in human 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.
- Short-Term Effect of Negative Verbal Language Versus Positive Verbal Language on Physical and Functional Capacity and Pain in People With Chronic Primary Low Back Pain.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The nocebo effect, where negative responses can occur as a result of negative expectations, has gained increasing attention in motor control research, with growing evidence highlighting its impact on both athletic and everyday movements. However, the specific methodologies used to induce nocebo effects on motor outcomes remain unexplored. This scoping review aimed to address three key questions: (1) What experimental protocols have been developed and used to elicit nocebo effects in motor performance in healthy individuals? (2) How are these effects assessed and measured? (3) What are the observed effects on motor outcomes? Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA framework, searching PubMed, EBSCO, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to March 2025. Eighteen studies were included. Results and discussion: Verbal instruction was the most common induction method (94.4 %), often combined with conditioning or visual cues. Motor tasks assessed gross skills, such as sprinting and cycling), with limited attention given to fine motor control. Outcomes were more frequently centered on performance measures (e.g., strength, endurance), with less emphasis on movement quality (e.g., coordination). Nocebo effects were observed in half of the studies impairing motor performance, including reduced force production, diminished endurance, disrupted postural stability and slower movement speed. The findings highlight methodological diversity in induction protocols and measurement methods. Future research should expand participant diversity, investigate fine motor tasks, and further explore the interplay between induction methods and motor outcomes.
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.