Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42624895›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2026

Successful coordination emerges from aligned self-predictions in a dynamic motor interaction.

Prasetia Utama Putra, Fumihiro Kano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications psychology, 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.

Prasetia Utama PutraCentre for the Advanced Study of Collective Behaviour, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany. prasetiautama2@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7632-375X
Fumihiro KanoCentre for the Advanced Study of Collective Behaviour, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany. fumihiro.kano@uni-konstanz.de.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) EXC 2117-422037984
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A central challenge in understanding joint action is explaining how individuals achieve successful coordination in dynamic, real-world settings. Although coordination is thought to depend on anticipating future events, including the actions of others, the precise contribution of such predictive processing remains unclear, since most existing evidence comes from simplified laboratory tasks that infer anticipation indirectly from reaction times. To address this gap, we studied 70 participants (forming 64 pairs) during solo and joint sessions of a turn-taking ball-hitting task while recording multimodal behavioral, physiological, demographic, and social measures. We found that successful coordination was most strongly associated with anticipation of one's own action outcomes, outperforming physiological synchrony, motor behavior, demographic characteristics, and social closeness. Partners whose predictions of their own action outcomes were more closely aligned coordinated better, likely because each behaved in ways the other implicitly expected. A Bayesian generative model further showed that well-coordinated pairs relied more heavily on prior expectations than on incoming sensory evidence when generating predictions during joint action. These results suggest that efficient coordination in dynamic real-world tasks emerges primarily when individuals' internal models for predicting their own actions are well aligned across partners. Our quantitative multimodal approach provides a framework for disentangling the contributions of predictive, physiological, motor, and social factors to coordination in naturalistic interactions.

Identifiers

PMID42624895
PMCPMC13493972

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.