MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030751915 · doi:10.3200/jmbr.39.1.9-18

Eye—Hand Coordination Asymmetries in Manual Aiming

2007· article· en· W2030751915 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 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEye–hand coordinationCognitive psychologyCommunicationPsychologyComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors investigated whether movement-planning and feedback-processing abilities associated with the 2 hand-hemisphere systems mediate illusion-induced biases in manual aiming and saccadic eye movements. Although participants' (N = 23) eye movements were biased in the direction expected on the basis of a typical Müller-Lyer configuration, hand movements were unaffected. Most interesting, both left- and right-handers' eye fixation onset and time to hand peak velocity were earlier when they aimed with the left hand than they were when they aimed with the right hand, regardless of the availability of vision for online movement control. They thus adapted their eye-hand coordination pattern to accommodate functional asymmetries. The authors suggest that individuals apply different movement strategies according to the abilities of the hand and the hemisphere system used to produce the same outcome.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.284 · 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