Measuring motor awareness and metacognition at the start, middle, and end of a reaching movement
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The ability to monitor our arm position during goal-directed behaviour allows us to bring our limb to a target as accurately as possible. Despite our success in executing accurate movements, some work suggests that individuals have limited access to information about their limb position. However, other evidence from metacognition research indicates that people have some access to details about their movements. In these studies, individuals are asked to rate their confidence after making judgements about their movements and tend to give higher confidence ratings when they are correct, showing some capacity for self-monitoring. These conflicting results suggest that we may not be able to monitor an entire movement from start to end. In the current study, participants (n = 50) made reaching movements toward targets on a screen. They were then visually presented with two movement paths: one being their actual trajectory and the other being a visually deviated version. Here, we manipulated the location that the deviation was implemented (i.e., start, middle, or end of the path). Participants were then asked to determine which trajectory was their own, while also rating their confidence in their response. Overall, accuracy was lower than expected. Nevertheless, accuracy was significantly lower when deviations occurred at the start of the reach, indicating that awareness of limb position is further reduced at the start of a movement. Additionally, participants were able to metacognitively monitor their movements because their confidence scaled with their accuracy in the task. Finally, differences in metacognitive processes between locations were found, with higher average confidence in the middle of a movement when accuracy was held constant. We conclude that people have a remarkable blindness to the properties of their own movements. As well, monitoring of a limb is significantly reduced at the start of a movement suggesting reduced attention to limb position at this time, possibly due to movement programming demands.
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 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».