Goal-directed aiming: Two components but multiple processes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews the behavioral literature on the control of goal-directed aiming and presents a multiple-process model of limb control. The model builds on recent variants of Woodworth's (1899) two-component model of speed-accuracy relations in voluntary movement and incorporates ideas about dynamic online limb control based on prior expectations about the efferent and afferent consequences of a planned movement. The model considers the relationship between movement speed and accuracy, and how performers adjust their trial-to-trial aiming behavior to find a safe, but fast, zone for movement execution. The model also outlines how the energy and safety costs associated with different movement outcomes contribute to movement planning processes and the control of aiming trajectories. Our theoretical position highlights the importance of advance knowledge about the sensory information that will be available for online control and the need to develop a robust internal representation of expected sensory consequences. We outline how early practice contributes to optimizing strategic planning to avoid worst-case outcomes associated with inherent neural-motor variability. Our model considers the role of both motor development and motor learning in refining feed-forward and online control. The model reconciles procedural and representational accounts of the specificity-of-learning phenomenon. Finally, we examine the breakdown of perceptual-motor precision in several special populations (i.e., Down syndrome, Williams syndrome, autism spectrum disorder, normal aging) within the framework of a multiple-process approach to goal-directed aiming.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".