Automaticity of online control processes in manual aiming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments that manipulated the visual feedback of the moving limb have suggested the existence of efficient and automatic online correction processes. We wanted to determine whether the latency/gain of the correction for a cursor jump are only influenced by the size of the cursor jump or whether they are also influenced by the need of a correction for the target to be reached. In Experiment 1, we used two target sizes (5 and 30 mm) and three cursor-jump amplitudes (5, 15, and 25 mm), so that for some target size/cursor-jump combinations, no correction would be needed to reach the target. Participants were not aware of the cursor jump, but we observed a 65% correction regardless of target size. In Experiment 2, participants pointed at a large target for which a 15-mm cursor jump never impeded target attainment. Participants modified the trajectory of their movement in the direction opposite to the cursor jump (42% of the cursor jump). Our results indicate that the latency of the correction for a cursor jump was not influenced by the size of the cursor jump or that of the target. However, the correction tailored the movement's initial impulse according to the target's characteristics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".