Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42017970›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2026

Binding continuous response features of extended movements: Integration with discrete response but not stimulus features.

Anna Foerster, Birte Moeller, Maria Nemeth, Moritz Schaaf, Christian Frings, Roland Pfister

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Moving beyond discrete categories in motor cognition.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026
    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

6 authors.

Anna FoersterDepartment of Psychology, Trier University, Universitätsring 15, 54296, Trier, Germany.
Birte MoellerDepartment of Psychology, Trier University, Universitätsring 15, 54296, Trier, Germany.
Maria NemethDepartment of Psychology, Trier University, Universitätsring 15, 54296, Trier, Germany.
Moritz SchaafDepartment of Psychology, Trier University, Universitätsring 15, 54296, Trier, Germany.
Christian FringsDepartment of Psychology, Trier University, Universitätsring 15, 54296, Trier, Germany.
Roland PfisterDepartment of Psychology, Trier University, Universitätsring 15, 54296, Trier, Germany. roland.pfister@uni-trier.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Binding and retrieval have been portrayed as key mechanisms in human action control. This theoretical framework posits that features of perception and action (e.g., object color, effector, etc.) are bound to each other. Afterwards, re-encountering one feature can retrieve bound features, thereby facilitating action repetition. Previous research focused on bindings with discrete response features (e.g., responding with a left or right button). This focus neglects the rich information required to control body movements. Here, we investigated continuous response features of extended movements related to both action goals and the implementation of these goals. Participants swiped their fingers on a tablet toward a small, briefly presented target circle that was accompanied by a sound. We analyzed response errors and similarity between successive response positions, depending on the sequence of (1) swiped hands, (2) irrelevant sounds, and (3) target positions. Sound repetitions did not bias responses toward preceding target or response positions whereas hand repetitions biased responding toward both positions, especially when target positions repeated. On the one hand, stimulus-response binding and retrieval seem to be remarkably focused on discrete response features, thus challenging the role of this mechanism in controlling overt body movements. On the other hand, fine-grained features of a response can be bound and retrieved from other response features, providing short-cuts to both the agents' previous action goals and the implemented deviation from these goals.Public significance statementHumans do not explicitly think about every action. Instead, they automatically connect what they perceive with how they act, a process that facilitates repetition of actions. Yet, which aspects of perception and action can become connected remains a topic of debate. Our study shows that these connections may extend beyond categorical action features (e.g., pressing a certain button on a phone) to metric action features (e.g., touching a specific position on a screen).

Indexed as

Motor ActivityPsychomotor PerformanceAdultFemaleHumansMaleMovementReaction TimeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID42017970
PMCPMC13102753

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.