Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42428960›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2026

No strategic interactions between sequential grasping actions.

Kevin A LeBlanc, David A Westwood

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

2 authors.

Kevin A LeBlancDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
David A WestwoodSchool of Health and Human Performance, Division of Kinesiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Every day we perform consecutive grasping actions to complete our desired goals. Although we have a good understanding about how the brain programs one grasping action towards a single object, we have limited knowledge about how the brain programs a grasping action within the context of a sequential task. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the characteristics of the second object in a sequence of two grasping movements affects how the first object is grasped. In Experiment 1, we explored whether the size and orientation of the second object would affect the grip aperture and grip orientation used to grasp a first cylindrical object that varied between two sizes. Unlike results reported by Hesse and Deubel, the orientation of the second object had no significant influence on the grip orientation used to grasp the first object. However, when the second object was smaller than the first object, participants reached out with a smaller peak grip aperture relative to when the second object was the same size or larger. In Experiment 2 we manipulated object orientation but not size, in a strict replication of Hesse and Deubel's study. Like Experiment 1, we found no effect of the second object's orientation on the first grasping movement. Based on these results, it is suggested that the second object within a sequential task will only interfere with the grasping kinematics towards the first object when both action plans have overlapping features, and most importantly this is not dependent on providing a strategic benefit to the overall movement.

Indexed as

action sequenceattentiongraspingmotor controlsequential movements

Identifiers

PMID42428960
PMCPMC13346250

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.