Control of response timing occurs during the simple reaction time interval but on-line for choice reaction time.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The preparation of multiple element movements has been examined for decades, with no clear explanation offered for the disparate results observed. Results from 2 experiments are presented and, in conjunction with previous results, a theoretical interpretation is offered regarding the preparatory processes that occur before, during and after the reaction time (RT) interval for multiple element movements during both simple and choice RT paradigms. In Experiment 1, number of elements and timing complexity were manipulated in a simple RT key-press task, using a startling acoustic stimulus to probe advance preparation. Both startle and nonstartle RT increased with number of movement elements and for a movement with increased timing complexity, providing evidence that the control of response timing occurs during the RT interval. In Experiment 2, the production of key-press movements of varying number of elements was compared in a simple versus choice RT paradigm. Results indicated that simple RT was affected by the number of elements, yet choice RT was not. Additionally, choice RT trials showed significantly longer interresponse intervals compared with those observed in simple RT trials, providing evidence for online processing in choice RT. The results of both studies, together with previous findings, suggest that planning of the timing of the onsets of the elements is prepared during simple RT, whereas planning of other aspects of the sequence of elements seems to occur in the foreperiod prior to the "go" signal. Conversely, in the choice RT paradigm, timing seems to be controlled online. This explanation may bring closure on difficulties encountered in over 50 years of research examining response preparation for complex movements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".