Modulation of Anticipatory Postural Adjustments in the Anticipation-Coincidence Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to (a) verify whether the time available for movement preparation and execution modulates anticipatory postural adjustments/focal movement coordination and (b) determine to what extent the coordination in an anticipation-coincidence (AC) timing task is specific. Ten subjects performed an arm-raising movement from standing position in the reaction time, self-initiated (SI), and AC conditions. In the latter condition, subjects had to synchronize movement initiation or the end of the movement to the passage of a visual mobile on a target. In AC trials, time to contact (TC), which is the time before the mobile reached the target, was varied (720, 1,200, 3,000 ms). Electromyography, kinetic, and kinematics data were collected. Results showed that the coordination patterns were modified by TC, the velocity of the mobile, and the condition in which the movement was executed. It also showed that the behavior in the AC condition came closest to the 1 observed in SI condition when TC increased. These results support the existence of different control modes triggered by the temporal pressure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".