Reaching patterns across working space: The effects of handedness, task demands, and comfort levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments are reported which examine skill demands, location, and perceived comfort levels for a preferential reaching test with left- and right-handed participants. In Experiment 1, the effect of task demands was examined by having participants perform tasks of varying difficulty with tools (Lift, Pantomime, and Use) that were placed in an array in working space. Preferred hand reaches predominated at the midline and ipsilateral positions, and decreased significantly for contralateral positions, where the frequency of preferred hand reaches increased with task difficulty. In Experiment 2 we developed a new measure (the Comfort Rating Scale) to rate the subjective feeling of comfort for reaching movements. Using the same array of tools and tasks, participants were instructed which hand to use to perform reaching movements, and then rated how the movement felt. The preferred hand was always rated as being comfortable, whereas the non-preferred hand was sensitive to the effects of task demands and tool position. The ratings showed that it was the level of comfort with the non-preferred hand, rather than with the preferred hand, that contributed to the patterns seen on the first study. The Comfort Rating Scale provides new insight into the distribution of reaching movements within working space.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".