ReviewExperimental brain research2025
Biological kinematics: a detailed review of the velocity-curvature power law calculation.
Review in Experimental brain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection of mismatching visual kinematics during visuomotor incongruence: A comparison of spatially matched delays versus offsets along identical trajectories.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- The relationship between speed and curvature differs in autistic and non-autistic tracing movements.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- An assessment of autistic and parkinsonian movement profiles to inform selective classification algorithms.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2026Article
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
Abstract
The 'one-third power law', relating velocity to curvature is among the most established kinematic invariances in bodily movements. Despite being heralded amongst the 'kinematic laws of nature' (Flash 2021, p. 4), there is no consensus on its origin, common reporting practice, or vetted analytical protocol. Many legacy elements of analytical protocols in the literature are suboptimal, such as noise amplification from repeated differentiation, biases arising from filtering, log transformation distortion, and injudicious linear regression, all of which undermine power law calculations. Recent findings of power law divergences in clinical populations have highlighted the need for improved protocols. This article reviews prior power law calculation protocols, identifies suboptimal practices, before proposing candidate solutions grounded in the kinematics literature. We evaluate these candidates via two simple criteria: firstly, they must avoid spurious confirmation of the law, secondly, they must confirm the law when it is present. Ultimately, we synthesise candidate solutions into a vetted, modular protocol which we make freely available to the scientific community. The protocol's modularity accommodates future analytical advances and permits re-use in broader kinematic science applications. We propose that adoption of this protocol will eliminate artificial confirmation of the law and facilitate more sensitive quantification of recently noted power law divergences, which are associated with neurochemical disturbances arising from dopaminergic drugs, and in conditions such as Parkinson's and autism.
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.