Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41498821›Full record

ReviewBrain structure & function2026

Cortical candidates for self-other distinction based on visual and action cues: where do we stand?

Jakub Limanowski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain structure & function, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

1 author.

Jakub LimanowskiInstitut für Psychologie, Universität Greifswald, Franz-Mehring-Straße 47, 17489, Greifswald, Germany. jakub.limanowski@uni-greifswald.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Distinguishing sensations that were generated by one’s actions (reafference) from those that were not may be grounded in the comparison of sensory and action cues; i.e., in evaluating sensory movement feedback against motor predictions by “comparator” modules in the brain. For the evaluation of visual movement feedback, brain imaging studies have converged on three candidate brain regions for such comparisons: the EBA, the STS, and the AG. Yet, the question whether the “action cues” received by those regions are motor or non-motor signals cannot conclusively be answered, partly due to the heterogeneity of the imaging results and differences in experimental methodology. Thus, there is an ongoing debate which of these regions implement visuomotor comparisons, rather than merely intersensory (e.g., visuoproprioceptive) comparisons blind to the cause of movement. In this mini review, I revisit the assumptions of classical (visuomotor) comparator models; discuss potential experimental biases resulting from non-motoric cues; highlight how differences in kinematic predictability result from different kinds of experimental visual feedback distortion—and how this could be capitalized on; and I discuss the potential promises and pitfalls of recent experimental approaches using adaptation designs and factorial visuomotor conflict designs with additional control over the locus of movement generation.

Indexed as

Cerebral CortexCuesFeedback, SensoryPsychomotor PerformanceVisual PerceptionAnimalsHumansMovementActionComparator modelMotor controlSelf-other distinctionVision

Identifiers

PMID41498821
PMCPMC12779667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.