ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Validation of novel naturalistic limb movement stimuli for studying biological motion perception in adults.
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. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Understanding how we perceive and interpret the movements of other living beings is fundamental to social interaction, survival, and navigating our dynamic environment. Traditional studies of biological motion perception have predominantly employed simplified stimuli, such as point-light displays, which sacrifice ecological validity for experimental control. Methods: To overcome this limitation, we created a novel stimulus set featuring naturalistic videos of isolated hand and leg movements. These stimuli incorporated variations in viewing perspective (first-person vs. third-person) and the presence or absence of object interactions, thereby increasing their real-world relevance. We recorded electroencephalography (EEG) from 28 adult participants as they viewed these goal-directed movements alongside nature scenes that served as control stimuli. Neural engagement was assessed through two complementary measures: inter-subject correlation (ISC), which captures shared neural responses across viewers, and intra-subject correlation (IaSC), which reflects temporal consistency of responses within individual viewers. We hypothesized that (1) biological limb movements would elicit stronger neural synchrony than non-biological motion, (2) movement type (arm vs. leg), object interaction, and visual perspective would differentially modulate ISC based on distinct affordance-related processing systems, and (3) these effects would replicate upon second exposure. Results: Our findings revealed that lower-limb movements elicited significantly greater ISC compared to both upper-limb movements and nature scenes. This effect proved robust, replicating consistently when participants viewed the same experimental conditions a second time. Furthermore, specific stimulus features modulated neural synchronization in domain-specific ways: first-person perspective enhanced ISC specifically for leg videos, whereas object interaction increased ISC specifically for arm videos. Notably, IaSC showed no differences across conditions, revealing a dissociation between cross-individual neural alignment and within-individual temporal consistency. Discussion: These findings provide new insights into how particular features of naturalistic movement systematically modulate shared neural engagement, advancing our understanding of biological motion perception in ecologically valid contexts. The dissociation between ISC and IaSC suggests that cross-individual neural synchronization and within-individual temporal consistency reflect distinct neural processes.
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.