Three-Dimensional Manual Responses to Unexpected Target Perturbations During Rapid Aiming
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 authors examined the execution of rapid aiming movements to targets that changed size and position. Participants viewed a medium-size target during movement preparation. The target became smaller or larger at movement initiation on size perturbation trials. The target moved closer or farther away from the home position on amplitude perturbation trials. The authors examined-in addition to several performance measures-the volume of 3-dimensional ellipsoids to quantify between-trials variability. In the size protocol, men executed movements in a similar manner irrespective of condition. In contrast, women exhibited less variability when target size increased. In the amplitude protocol, men moved inconsistently in the latter portion of the trajectory when targets became proximal. Men also failed to adjust for the perturbation on several trials. In comparison, women were more variable in the initial portions of the trajectory when the target became distal. Although men and women performed their movements in a similar duration, the trajectory and error analyses indicated different behaviors. Specifically, women made more rapid and efficient adjustments to their trajectories on the basis of concurrent visual information. In contrast, men executed movements on the basis of the visual information initially presented and then made adjustments, rather than gathering visual information and executing adjustments throughout the trajectory.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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