Attentional and Motor Response Priming in a Bimanual Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the performance of the upper limbs during responses to previously cued and un-cued locations. Participants made unimanual and bimanual responses under homologous and non-homologous muscular control, within a cuetarget (Experiment 1; n = 10), and a target-target (Experiment 2; n = 10) aiming protocol. The inhibition of return (IOR) to a target location was expected to increase with (a) an increase in the organization of the movement response required, and (b) the decrease in the muscular coupling under which the bimanual movement was performed. IOR was observed in both experiments when participants completed their movements in either the unimanual or homologous conditions, but not in the non-homologous condition. In addition, reaction times were significantly shorter when a movement preceded the response than when no manual response was made to the initial visual cue. The results indicate that common processing delays in response to exogenously cued targets are dependent on the muscular control of those responses. Thus, this study provides evidence that IOR is moderated by the muscular control under which the bimanual movement was performed indicating an influential involvement of the motor system in both the movement planning and movement response to multiple target stimuli.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".