The Use of Online Control: A Developmental Perspective
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To date very little research has addressed the abilities of young participants to respond to a change in visual information provided during movement execution. This study attempted to determine the ability of 45 participants (5, 7, 9 years) to respond to a change in visual information during a discrete rapid aiming movement. A perturbation paradigm where the target size changed after movement onset was used. In the control context, movements were made to each target size (small, medium, large) with no perturbation. In contrast, during the experimental context the target always began as a medium target. Upon movement initiation, the target size could remain constant or might unexpectedly become larger or smaller. Temporal, kinematic, and correction data were collected to determine the control process underlying the aiming movement. No interaction was found between age and condition for movement time (MT), and results indicated that all ages scaled movement time to final target size. The accuracy data revealed the 9-year-old participants were more accurate than the 5- and 7-year-old participants. To determine where the changes in duration were made, the time to and after peak velocity (TTPV, TAPV), and peak velocity values (PV) were examined. The PV values indicated that, during the control context, the participants scaled their movement to the target size. However, during the experimental condition generally no significant differences were found in either measure, suggesting a programmed response based on the original target size. This was supported by the correction data collected prior to peak velocity, lending further support to a programmed response. Following peak velocity, it was found that differences in MT were as a result of time spent in deceleration. This increased TAPV, and increased number of corrections observed, suggest that all participants were using on-line control following peak velocity in response to the change in visual information. The data collected supports a model of control that incorporates both open-loop control during the initial impulse phase, and closed-loop control during the current control phase for participants as young as 5 years.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».