ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Vibrotactile augmentation enhances late-phase control in sequential reaching without accuracy costs.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 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.
- Sequential reaching in older adults: vibrotactile feedback improves preparation and movement control.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Sequential goal-directed movements require the integration of advance planning and online control processes. However, the extent to which augmented sensory feedback influences these processes across multiple movement segments remains unclear. Vibrotactile and auditory feedback may enhance motor control by providing additional sensory information during movement execution, particularly in complex sequential tasks. Methods: Twenty-four neurotypical adults (mean age 27.04 ± 5.31 years) performed one-target and four two-target reaching tasks involving single- and bimanual movements with extension and reversal components. Participants completed the tasks under three sensory conditions: no feedback, auditory feedback, and vibrotactile feedback delivered at first target contact. Reaction time, movement time, spatial accuracy, and kinematic measures including peak velocity and time after peak velocity were analyzed using repeated-measures analyses of variance. Results: Reaction time was significantly influenced by both sensory condition and target task complexity, with faster movement initiation observed in the no-feedback condition and during less complex movement sequences. Sensory condition did not significantly affect overall movement time or spatial accuracy. However, vibrotactile feedback significantly reduced time after peak velocity during the second movement segment, indicating enhanced late-phase control without compromising accuracy. Target task complexity also significantly modulated kinematic control, particularly during bimanual reversal movements. Discussion: These findings demonstrate that vibrotactile feedback selectively enhances deceleration-related control during sequential reaching movements, supporting its role as an effective sensory augmentation strategy for improving movement efficiency in complex motor tasks. Such low-cost sensory interventions may have practical implications for enhancing motor performance in populations experiencing age-related or neurological declines in sensorimotor function.
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.