MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015598081 · doi:10.1080/00222890309602141

Online Versus Offline Processing of Visual Feedback in the Production of Component Submovements

2003· article· en· W2015598081 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComponent (thermodynamics)PsychologyCommunicationVisual feedbackHuman–computer interactionComputer scienceCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present authors tested the assumptions in R. S. Woodworth's (1899) 2-component model regarding the specific roles of vision in the production of both the initial impulse and the error-correction phases of movement. Participants (N = 40) practiced a rapid aiming task (1,500 trials), with either no visual feedback, vision of only the 1st 50% of the movement, vision of only the 1st 75% of the movement, or vision of the entire movement. Consistent with previous research, the availability of vision over the 1st half of the movement had no effect on aiming accuracy during acquisition. In contrast, when visual feedback was available over the 1st 75% of the movement and the entire movement, initial impulse endpoints were less variable and the efficiency of the error-correction phase was improved. Analysis of spatial variability at various stages in the movement revealed that participants processed visual feedback offline to improve programming of the initial impulse and processed it online in regulating the deceleration of the initial impulse.

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 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 score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.261 · 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