Covid-19: MHRA is concerned over use of rapid lateral flow devices for mass testing
Abstract
Previous studies have demonstrated that when we observe somebody else executing an action many areas of our own motor systems are active. It has been argued that these motor activations are evidence that we motorically simulate observed actions; this motoric simulation may support various functions such as imitation and action understanding. However, whether motoric simulation is indeed the function of motor activations during action observation is controversial, due to inconsistency in findings. Previous studies have demonstrated dynamic modulations in motor activity when we execute actions. Therefore, if we do motorically simulate observed actions, our motor systems should also be modulated dynamically, and in a corresponding fashion, during action observation. Using magnetoencephalography, we recorded the cortical activity of human participants while they observed actions performed by another person. Here, we show that activity in the human motor system is indeed modulated dynamically during action observation. The finding that activity in the motor system is modulated dynamically when observing actions can explain why studies of action observation using functional magnetic resonance imaging have reported conflicting results, and is consistent with the hypothesis that we motorically simulate observed actions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Multiple reports have shown LFD sensitivity of about 40-70%.
“multiple reports have shown more limited sensitivity (about 40–70%),14, 15”
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Soltan, A. A. S., Yang, J., Pattanshetty, R., Novak, A., Yang, Y., Rohanian, O., Beer, S., Soltan, M. A., Thickett, D. R., Fairhead, R., et al. (2022) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(21)00272-7 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
- Authors
- Iacobucci, G.
- Affiliations
- BMJ Group (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Iacobucci, Gareth
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2021-04-28
- Volume
- 373
- Pages
- n1090
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3157934594
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 0.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Regulation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Keywords
- COVID-19 pandemic, large-scale testing, MHRA, diagnostic test regulation, COVID-19 testing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review