Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42179732›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2026

Validation of novel naturalistic limb movement stimuli for studying biological motion perception in adults.

Maria Koriakina, Ioannis Ntoumanis, Evgeny Blagovechtchenski, Ekaterina Pomelova, Tatiana Ledneva, Olga Agranovich, Isak B Blank, Andriy Myachykov, Anna Shestakova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Maria Koriakina *Affective Psychophysiology Laboratory, Institute of Health Psychology, HSE, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.
Ioannis Ntoumanis *Centre for Cognition and Decision Making, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Evgeny BlagovechtchenskiAffective Psychophysiology Laboratory, Institute of Health Psychology, HSE, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.
Ekaterina PomelovaCentre for Cognition and Decision Making, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Tatiana LednevaCognitive Health and Intelligence Centre, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Olga AgranovichH. Turner National Medical Research Center for Сhildren's Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.
Isak B BlankCentre for Cognition and Decision Making, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Andriy MyachykovCognitive Health and Intelligence Centre, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Anna ShestakovaCentre for Cognition and Decision Making, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

action observationaffordancesbiological motionperceptionelectroencephalography (EEG)intersubject correlation (ISC)visual perspective

Identifiers

PMID42179732
PMCPMC13190463

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.