ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2026
Sequential reaching in older adults: vibrotactile feedback improves preparation and movement control.
Article in Frontiers in aging 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Age-related motor decline is particularly evident during complex movements that require sequencing and bimanual coordination. The one-target advantage (OTA), in which single-target movements are typically initiated faster than the first segment of a two-target sequence, provides a useful framework for assessing planning demands in older adults. Methods: We examined whether task complexity and brief auditory or vibrotactile feedback delivered at the first target contact influence sequential reaching performance in 24 older adults (67.46 ± 5.41 years). Participants completed one- and two-target reaching tasks under three feedback conditions (no feedback, auditory feedback, or vibrotactile feedback) across movement types varying in complexity, including extension, reversal, unimanual, and bimanual movement sequences. Outcome measures included movement preparation, movement execution, movement transitions, kinematic measures, and endpoint accuracy. Results: Vibrotactile feedback selectively improved performance by shortening reaction time in the unimanual extension task relative to one-target movements, effectively reversing the typical OTA pattern. Vibrotactile feedback also increased peak velocity and altered kinematic control during the second movement segment. In contrast, movement time to the first target remained unchanged, whereas movement time to the second target increased with task complexity and was longest during bimanual conditions. Endpoint accuracy and consistency remained stable across feedback and task conditions, indicating that the kinematic benefits of vibrotactile feedback did not occur at the expense of either endpoint accuracy or endpoint consistency. Discussion: Overall, brief vibrotactile cues enhanced movement preparation and kinematic control in older adults during sequential reaching, particularly under higher coordination demands.
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.