MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968943104 · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.28.2.447

Visuomotor rotations of varying size and direction compete for a single internal model in a motor working memory.

2002· article· en· W1968943104 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotation (mathematics)FacilitationWorking memorySign (mathematics)Motor learningPsychologyCommunicationPhysicsNeuroscienceMathematicsGeometryCognitionMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When participants adapt to equal and opposite visuomotor rotations in close temporal proximity, memory of the 1st is not consolidated. The authors investigated whether this retrograde interference depends on the use of equal and opposite rotations. On Day 1, different groups of participants adapted to a -30 degrees rotation followed 5 min later by rotations of +30 degrees, +60 degrees, or -60 degrees. On Day 2, all groups were retested on the -30 degrees rotation. Either retrograde interference (in groups who adapted to rotations of opposite sign on Day 1) or retrograde facilitation (in the remaining group) was observed. In all groups, learning of the 2nd rotation resulted in unlearning of the first, indicating that all visuomotor rotations compete for common working memory resources.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.247 · 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