Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41890972›Full record

ArticleiScience2026

Online corrections to visual targets are not a distinct class of movement.

David Y Mekhaiel, Melvyn A Goodale, Brian D Corneil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

David Y MekhaielGraduate Program in Neuroscience, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Melvyn A GoodaleWestern Institute for Neuroscience, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Brian D CorneilWestern Institute for Neuroscience, Western University, London, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans can rapidly adjust their reach when visual targets jump to a new location. Here, we test whether these online corrections arise from an "automatic pilot" that is selectively engaged during ongoing movements. We measured muscle recruitment in a jumping target task. In separate blocks, participants either followed the jumped target, ignored it, or tried to stop the original reach. In all blocks, we observed an early (∼80 ms) burst of muscle recruitment, an express visuomotor response (EVR), that directed the reach toward the jumped target and was somewhat reduced in magnitude in the "stop" and "ignore" blocks. Critically, the EVR occurred at the exact same latency during reaches initiated from rest. Our results are consistent with the proposal that all reaches, whether adjusted mid-flight or initiated from rest, arise from a common nested control system featuring subcortical and cortical components that can each be strategically preset by task demands.

Indexed as

Behavioral neuroscience

Identifiers

PMID41890972
PMCPMC13015247

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.