ArticleScientific reports2026
Observed hand-movement reversals postdictively bias ambiguous motion judgements.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Postdiction refers to the phenomenon whereby the visual system retrospectively integrates information arriving within a brief (approximately 100-200 ms) window after an event to finalize perceptual judgements. We investigated whether observed action cues, specifically mouse-control movements by others that were causally irrelevant to the display, can influence this late integration. In the stream/bounce experiments, participants viewed two identical bars approach, spatially overlap, and separate. Another person (an experimenter) facing the participant operated a mouse mounted on a motorized slider that was causally irrelevant to the bars. The slider executed one of five movement patterns: no movement (control), non-invert (continuous movement in one direction), pre (reversal 150 ms before the bars overlap), at (reversal as the bars overlap), and post (reversal 150 ms after the bars overlap). The participants knew that the other person's mouse movement could not influence the bars' motion. Relative to the control condition, the other person's mouse-control reversal movements increased "bounce," whereas continuous noninverting movement decreased bounce. Critically, in the post condition, where the other person's reversal followed the bars overlapping, bounce increased substantially, indicating a postdictive influence. These results show that another person's movement can serve as a context-conditioned prior that is postdictively integrated to disambiguate motion correspondence.
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.