ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2026
Observability constrains expertise-dependent kinematic readout in action prediction.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 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
Abstract
Human movement is variable even when the latent intention is identical, which complicates action prediction from kinematics. Although perceptual expertise often improves anticipation, it remains unclear how this benefit is modulated by intrinsic trial-to-trial fluctuations in kinematic structure. We introduce kinematic observability, operationalized as the distance of a movement instance from the optimal decision boundary in kinematic feature space. In a table-tennis action prediction task with an expert-novice paradigm, we sampled trials based on objective evidence strength rather than masking body parts. Experts outperformed novices on high-observability trials and showed readout weights more closely aligned with the optimal encoding direction. However, under low observability, the expert advantage was attenuated, accompanied by a criterion shift reflecting increased reliance on prior expectations. These results indicate that expertise improves anticipatory readout when observability is high but yields smaller benefits when trial-wise kinematic evidence is weak; under low observability, experts also shift decision criterion in a manner consistent with increased reliance on prior expectations.
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.