ArticleExperimental brain research2026
Comments on "The equilibrium point hypothesis revisited: why threshold control does not explain human movement" (Mangalam and Stergiou, Exp Brain Res., 2026).
Article in Experimental brain research, 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
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mangalam and Stergiou (Exp Brain Res 244:44, 2026) argue that the equilibrium point hypothesis, and its development into the referent control theory (RCT), lack mechanistic adequacy and should be replaced. This commentary raises an epistemological concern: critique alone does not justify rational theory displacement. In philosophy of science, theories are typically “succeeded” only after they repeatedly fail severe, discriminative tests and when a competing theoretical framework demonstrates superior explanatory and predictive performance across the same target domain. Given that RCT remains a productive, testable research program with growing neurophysiological and translational support, it should be treated as a living theoretical framework whose explanatory logic and predictions should not be declared “succeeded” on the basis of critique alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41838176What 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.