MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013783837 · doi:10.1080/17470210500416375

Compatibility Effects in Stopping and Response Initiation in a Continuous Tracking Task

2006· article· en· W2013783837 on OpenAlexaff
Sharon Morein‐Zamir, Paul Nagelkerke, Romeo Chua, Ian M. Franks, Alan Kingstone

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompatibility (geochemistry)Stimulus–response compatibilityPsychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceCommunicationNeuroscienceCognitionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experiments explored stopping performance using a new stimulus-response compatibility effect spanning action initiation and stopping. Participants tracked a sometimes-moving, sometimes-stationary target by controlling the speed of a response marker via a force sensor. In the compatible condition, participants pressed the sensor in response to the target moving and stopped pressing in response to the target stopping. In the incompatible condition, participants stopped pressing in response to the target moving and initiated pressing in response to the target stopping. Response initiation and stopping were found to be faster under compatible than under incompatible conditions, regardless of whether compatible and incompatible trials were blocked or mixed. These findings indicate that stopping, like response initiation, is influenced by stimulus-response properties such as compatibility. This in turn suggests that stopping is governed by constraints similar to those of other behaviours.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of Experimental PsychologySame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207