Control Strategies When Intercepting Slowly Moving Targets
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
In 3 experiments, the authors investigated and described how individuals control manual interceptive movements to slowly moving targets. Participants (N = 8 in each experiment) used a computer mouse and a graphics tablet assembly to manually intercept targets moving across a computer screen toward a marked target zone. They moved the cursor so that it would arrive in the target zone simultaneously with the target. In Experiment 1, there was a range of target velocities, including some very slow targets. In Experiment 2, there were 2 movement distance conditions. Participants moved the cursor either the same distance as the target or twice as far. For both experiments, hand speed was found to be related to target speed, even for the very slowly moving targets and when the target-to-cursor distance ratios were altered, suggesting that participants may have used a strategy similar to tracking. To test that notion, in Experiment 3, the authors added a tracking task in which the participants tracked the target cursor into the target zone. Longer time was spent planning the interception movements; however, there was a longer time in deceleration for the tracking movements, suggesting that more visually guided trajectory updates were made in that condition. Thus, although participants scaled their interception movements to the cursor speed, they were using a different strategy than they used in tracking. It is proposed that during target interception, anticipatory mechanisms are used rather than the visual feedback mechanism used when tracking and when pointing to stationary targets.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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