MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992931541 · doi:10.3200/jmbr.41.4.339-346

Target-Directed Movements at a Comfortable Pace: Movement Duration and Fitts's Law

2009· article· en· W1992931541 on OpenAlexaff
Scott J. Young, Jay Pratt, Tom Chau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaceDuration (music)Movement (music)Fitts's lawPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitive psychologyComputer scienceCommunicationGeographyGeodesyMedicinePhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although many studies have supported P. M. Fitts's (1954) law as a description of the speed-accuracy trade-off for speeded movements, there has been a lack of research regarding movement duration for target-directed movements made at any other pace. In the present study, the duration of movements made at a naturally selected comfortable pace and a quick pace differed from Fitts's law in a way that was similar to the predictions of participants in previous studies of naive motor decisions and imagined movements (S. J. Young, J. Pratt, & T. Chau, 2008; S. J. Young, J. Pratt, & T. Chau, 2009). These results show that movements of various speeds have predictable patterns of movement duration. The results also suggest that individuals adjust more than the implicit target size when changing their desired movement speed.

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)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Motor BehaviorSame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207