Trial reportPloS one2024
Placebo and nocebo interventions impact perceived but not actual proprioceptive accuracy.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Negative expectations and measurable movement mechanics: a scoping review of the nocebo effect on motor performance.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
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
Changes in performance caused by positive and negative expectations (i.e., placebo and nocebo responses) were found to play an important role in many aspects of motor performance. This study aimed to test the impact of placebo/nocebo responses and the assumed moderating role of dispositional optimism and anxiety on proprioceptive accuracy, an essential aspect of motor functions. 78 undergraduate university students completed questionnaires assessing dispositional optimism, state anxiety, and motivation to cooperate, then were randomly assigned to three experimental groups. A sham subliminal electric stimulation was applied with claimed positive (placebo group, n = 26), negative (nocebo group, n = 26) or neutral (control group, n = 26) impact on proprioceptive accuracy. Proprioceptive accuracy was measured with active and passive versions of the Joint Position Reproduction task before and after the intervention. Expected and perceived changes in performance were also assessed; changes in state anxiety, optimism, and motivation to cooperate were used as control variables (covariates). Mixed analyses of variance indicated that the experimental manipulation did not affect actual proprioceptive accuracy but impacted expected and perceived performance. Adding the covariates to the models did not substantially change the results. Further, no significant association emerged between actual and perceived change in performance in the active test, and only a weak correlation was found in the passive test. Expected performance did not predict actual performance but predicted perceived performance in both tasks. The results suggest that only perceived (subjective) aspects of proprioceptive accuracy are susceptible to placebo and nocebo interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.