Revisiting Fitts and Peterson (1964): Width and amplitude manipulations to the reaching environment elicit dissociable movement times.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The classic theorem of Fitts (1954) asserts that the combined effects of movement amplitude and target width (index of difficulty: ID) define movement times (MTs) for goal-directed reaches. Moreover, Fitts' theorem states that reaches yielding the same ID produce equivalent MTs regardless of the response's amplitude and width combination. However, most work providing direct support for Fitts' theorem has employed short movement amplitudes and small target widths. Thus, no direct evidence supports the unitary nature of MT/ID relations across a range of amplitudes and widths used in contemporary studies of goal-directed reaching. To that end, we contrasted MT/ID relations for discrete reaches equated for movement ID but differing with respect to their amplitude (15.5, 19, 25.5, and 38 cm) and width (2, 3, 4, and 5 cm) requirements. Results show that amplitude and width manipulations yielded robust linear MT/ID relations; however, the slope of the MT/ID function was markedly steeper in the former (amplitude=92 ms; width=13 ms). Such findings indicate that the constituent elements of movement ID are dissociable and that the fixed parameter nature of Fitts' theorem cannot be applied to a continuous range of veridical movement amplitudes and target widths.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".