ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Spatial Orientation in a Cue-Target Task: Effects of Distance, Cue Direction, and Swimming Training Background.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined visually guided spatial updating and endpoint estimation under visual-only conditions and assessed whether performance varied by distance, cue direction, and swimming training background. Thirty-six right-handed male participants aged 18-20 years, including expert swimmers and amateur controls, completed a cue-target spatial orientation task with two distance conditions, short and long, and four cue directions, N, E, S, and W. Movement time, spatial error distance, and proportional movement time were analyzed using 2 × 2 × 4 mixed-design repeated-measures ANOVAs. Bayesian independent-samples comparisons were further conducted to quantify evidence for the null hypothesis of no robust group differences. The results indicated that task demands were the main determinants of performance. Compared with the short-distance condition, the long-distance condition yielded longer movement time, larger spatial errors, and higher proportional movement time, suggesting increased demands on spatial updating and movement execution. Cue direction also affected proportional movement time and spatial error distance, indicating direction-specific differences in visual cue integration and reference-frame transformation. By contrast, no robust overall group differences were found across the three primary behavioral measures, and the Bayesian analyses generally supported the null model. Although a significant Group × Distance interaction was observed for spatial error distance, this interaction reflected a group-related difference in the extent to which error increased from the short- to the long-distance condition, rather than evidence for a consistent expert advantage. Overall, performance in the present visual-only cue-target task was driven mainly by visuospatial updating load, attentional allocation, and task structure, whereas swimming-related expertise was not consistently expressed under the current task constraints.
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.