Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42478278›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2026

Action Intentions Shape Task- and Phase-Specific Integration of Object Features.

Nina Lee, Matthias Niemeier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Nina LeeDepartment of Psychology at Scarborough, University of Toronto, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada.
Matthias NiemeierDepartment of Psychology at Scarborough, University of Toronto, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2401-3258

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2020-06018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theories of object-based attention suggest that attending to an object binds its features together. Yet, there is a growing body of work to suggest that the intention to grasp an object can alter the representation of features such that they are separately represented during different stages of motor planning and execution, whereas some object features such as shape and size might form integrated representations when afforded by motor control. However, it remains untested whether these features were integrated as an outcome of the requirements of grasping motor control, or due to attention towards the object in general. Therefore, here we investigated how task-relevancy modulates the integration of grasp-relevant object features. To this end, we recorded electroencephalography while human participants grasped or reached for objects that varied in their orientation and size. Using multivariate analyses, we found a superadditive integration of object orientation and size during action planning for grasping but not reaching. These integrated representations likely facilitated the calculation of stable grasp points as further evidenced by the representations of grasp-specific visual size and grip size emerging at similar times. Our results provide novel insights into the vital role of action intention on cognitive representations in the human brain.

Indexed as

AttentionBrainIntentionPsychomotor PerformanceAdultElectroencephalographyFemaleHand StrengthHumansMaleYoung AdultEEGfeature integrationgraspingmachine learningobject‐based attention

Identifiers

PMID42478278
PMCPMC13386189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.