MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018405366 · doi:10.1167/14.10.303

The event related potential technique and microstate analysis of memory guided and visually guided movements.

2014· article· en· W2018405366 on OpenAlexaff
Dazhi Cheng, Karianne Fjeld, Gordon Binsted

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyMinistatePsychologyBrain activity and meditationNeuroscienceElectrophysiologyMovement (music)Neural correlates of consciousnessComputer scienceCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While behavioral protocols have primarily been used to examine the use of memory in human movement (Elliott & Madalena, 1987; Westwood, Heath & Roy, 2003), more recent examinations have involved more imaging techniques to determine the underlying brain processes that facilitate this function (Krigolson et al., 2011). This study examines the neural correlates associated with memory guided and visually guided reaching movements using electroencephalography (EEG). Participants performed manual aiming movements to targets under varying visual feedback (full-vision & no-vision) and delay (2 or 5 s) conditions. In experiment 1, conditions were randomized across trials while in experiment 2 conditions were blocked. Using the event related potential (ERP) technique we observed the visually evoked potentials (VEPs) associated with the preview of the target as well as movement related potentials associated with movement execution. The behavioral findings from the study replicated the typical advantage of having visual feedback i.e., greater accuracy and precision with vision. Additionally, the electrophysiological data revealed differences in brain potentials across vision conditions during target encoding and movement execution within the blocked protocol. Notably, brain potentials over parietal electrodes were suppressed in memory guided reaches as compared to visually guided reaches. Moreover, a longer delay period in no-vision revealed greater suppression of brain potentials. A micro-state analysis (i.e., Cartool software) involving the full electrode montage was used to examine the clustering of activity across the scalp over time. The results of this analysis showed differences in microstate duration across vision conditions that not only reinforce the basic ERP findings but also providing greater clarity on the potential underlying neural processes sub-serving manual aiming. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207