ArticlePloS one2026
Distinct prior expectations shape tactile and proprioceptive localization.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When a mosquito lands on your finger, swatting it away requires your brain to calculate its location in external space, which depends on the body's 3D posture. Two competing hypotheses explain how the brain solves this challenge: the integration hypothesis, where tactile signals are transformed into spatial coordinates by integrating touch and posture information; and the cueing hypothesis, where touch merely cues a location on the body whose position is specified via proprioception. Adjudicating between these hypotheses is nearly impossible without modeling the latent factors underlying somatosensory spatial perception. We fill this gap in the present study. We first formalized each hypothesis from a Bayesian perspective: If touch merely triggers proprioceptive localization (cueing hypothesis), tactile and proprioceptive localization should rely on the same Bayesian computations, with identical prior expectations about the mosquito's spatial location; If they involve distinct Bayesian computational processes (integration hypothesis), distinct prior expectations may shape tactile and proprioceptive localization. To test these predictions, we had nineteen participants localize either proprioceptive or tactile targets on their fingertips. We then fit their data with several Bayesian models of each hypothesis. Models allowing different prior distributions between modalities provided the best fit for most participants, with 15 out of 19 participants showing significantly different prior distributions across modalities. These provide strong computational evidence that tactile and proprioceptive localization rely on distinct computational mechanisms, a conclusion that has important implications for how we understand these everyday behaviors and their neural mechanisms.
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.