ArticleBMC biology2026
Serial dependence in goal-directed interceptive hand movements.
Article in BMC biology, 2026. 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.
- Serial dependence in goal-directed interceptive hand movements.BMC biology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSerial dependence-the influence of recent sensory history on current perception and action-has been studied extensively in perception but less in sensorimotor control. We investigated how sequential effects influence manual interception, where responses depend on continuous real-time information about moving targets. Participants performed an interception task where each trial consisted of two sequentially presented targets. The first target, the prior, moved either leftwards or rightwards at a velocity of 5 or 15 cm/s. The second target, the probe, always moved at 10 cm/s, either in the same or in the opposite direction as the prior. To dissociate the role of active motor engagement with the prior from its purely perceptual influence on probe interception, participants completed two conditions: intercepting both prior and probe targets, and only observing the prior and intercepting the probe.
resultsInterception errors exhibited distinct, context-dependent effects: When the prior was intercepted, there was an attractive bias when the prior and probe moved in the same direction, and a repulsive bias when they moved in opposite directions. When the prior was not intercepted, the interception of the probes was not influenced. The temporal evolution of hand velocities revealed that there was an initial attractive sensory serial dependence effect that affected hand movements, which was also reflected in eye movement behavior. The priors' influence diminished over time as new sensory information accumulated for online control of interception.
conclusionsOur study provides novel insights into how sensory history and motor engagement interact to shape continuous sensorimotor control.
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.