MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Using Rapid Reaching Tasks To Reveal The Underlying Mechanisms Of Decision Making In Humans (P3.030)

2014· article· en· W1499246106 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Khami

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical decision makingPsychologyMedicineCognitive scienceIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of multiple target encodings and initial hand position on visuomotor behaviour during decision making. BACKGROUND: Decision making is a key component of our everyday life. At any given moment, we are faced with several opportunities and are required to select and perform an appropriate action based on the given choices. To facilitate this decision process, it has been suggested that instead of selecting actions and then specifying their parameters, the visuomotor system actually plans multiple actions in parallel, which then compete for execution. Consistent with this, previous experiments in our lab have shown that when subjects are required to rapidly reach toward multiple potential targets before one is cued for action, they show a “middling behaviour”, with the initial trajectory aimed for an averaged location between possible targets. METHODS: We required participants (28 RH subjects, 19 used for analysis) to perform rapid reaches toward multiple potential targets and manipulated the starting position of the hand in relation to the potential targets using a 32 inch NEC LCD touchscreen monitor. A recording system tracked index finger movements via two infrared emitting diodes. RESULTS: In contrast to our predictions, we show that the “middling behaviour” we have observed previously can vary depending on initial hand position. Participant trajectories showed a significant bias toward the right side when either the start position or one of the targets was on the contralateral (left) side of the body. That is, when the hand was required to reach across the body, subjects initiated a trajectory that was biased toward the right target location. However, when the hand reached ipsilaterally, we observed the “middling behavior” that was found in our previous experiment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show how the visuomotor competition between targets evolves in three-dimensional space and that the decision to act is affected by the initial body position.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology→Same topicMotor Control and Adaptation→French-language works237,207→