MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990633953 · doi:10.1037/a0018308

Temporal judgments of immediate and delayed consequences of self-initiated movements.

2010· article· en· W1990633953 on OpenAlexafffund
Cheryl M. Glazebrook, Claudia Gonzalez, Jim Lyons, Digby Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFree Will and Agency
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTone (literature)PsychologyAudiologyMovement (music)Action (physics)Anticipation (artificial intelligence)Voluntary actionCognitive psychologyCommunicationPerceptionNeuroscienceMedicineComputer scienceAcousticsLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was designed to examine the impact of a delay between a self-initiated movement and a subsequent auditory event on temporal judgements of movement or sound onset. Participants watched a red dot move in a clockwise direction around a circle displayed on a computer screen and reported when they had pressed the spacebar or heard a tone. In other conditions, the movement and tone both occurred. Specifically, the tone followed the button press either immediately or after delays of 100, 250, or 400 ms. On some trial blocks, participants were asked to judge the time of the button press and on other blocks the time of the tone. When the tone occurred alone, participants' judgements were accurate. When the movement occurred alone participants exhibited an anticipatory bias. Although a delayed tone had a modest impact on judgements movement initiation, button press judgements were anticipatory in all tone delay conditions. Thusly temporal judgements associated with event binding are affected more by voluntary action than the auditory consequences of that action.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentaleSame topicFree Will and AgencyFrench-language works237,207