Effects of Target Presentation Time, Recall Delay, and Aging on the Accuracy of Manual Pointing to Remembered Targets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issues addressed in 2 experiments in which 10 younger and 10 older adults participated were (a) whether the retention of a target location in memory for motor control purposes would be facilitated by an increase in target presentation time; (b) whether increasing the recall delay since the last exposure to the target would have deleterious effects on aiming accuracy or variability, or both; and (c) whether those effects would be mediated by aging. The results revealed that there is a short-lived (< 1 s) visual representation of target location. In addition, the results suggested that the nature of that representation dictates a movement strategy favoring higher peak movement velocity. None of the effects reported in the present study was affected by age, suggesting that the coding and retrieving processes of target location in memory for motor control purposes are not affected by age.
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.
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 it