ReviewBrain structure & function2026
Cortical candidates for self-other distinction based on visual and action cues: where do we stand?
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection of mismatching visual kinematics during visuomotor incongruence: A comparison of spatially matched delays versus offsets along identical trajectories.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Perceptual sensitivity, but not metacognitive monitoring, is shaped by increases and decreases in control.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
- That's (relevant for) me: task-set-dependent brain responses to delayed visual movement feedback.Social cognitive and affective 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.