MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049261806 · doi:10.3200/jmbr.36.3.253-264

Prepared Movements Are Elicited Early by Startle

2004· article· en· W2049261806 on OpenAlexafffund
Anthony N. Carlsen, Romeo Chua, J. Timothy Inglis, David J. Sanderson, Ian M. Franks

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStartle responseStimulus (psychology)Moro reflexPsychologyAudiologyStartle reactionElectromyographyNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationReflexMedicineCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A startle stimulus has been shown to elicit a ballistic response in a reaction time (RT) task at very short latencies without involvement of the cerebral cortex (J. Valls-Sole, J. C. Rothwell, F. Gooulard, G. Cossu, & E. Munoz, 1999). The present authors examined the nature of the startle response. A simple RT task was used in which 8 participants performed arm extension movements to 3 target distances (20 degrees, 40 degrees, and 60 degrees ) in a blocked design. An unpredictable startling acoustic stimulus (124 dB) replaced the imperative stimulus in certain trials. The authors verified the presence of a startle response independent from the prepared response by observing electromyographic (EMG) activity in sternocleidomastoid and orbicularis oculi muscles. Findings indicated that when the participant was startled, the intended voluntary response was produced at significantly shorter response latencies. Furthermore, the kinematic variables of the observed response during startle trials for all 3 target distances were mostly unchanged. The EMG characteristics of the responses were not modified, indicating that the response produced was indeed the prepared and intended response.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations183
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Motor BehaviorSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207