MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056858717 · doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2503_4

The Use of Online Control: A Developmental Perspective

2004· article· en· W2056858717 on OpenAlexafffund
Sandra McKay, Patricia L. Weir

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neuropsychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsKinematicsPsychologyMovement (music)Context (archaeology)Movement controlCognitive psychologyContrast (vision)Perturbation (astronomy)Physical medicine and rehabilitationDevelopmental psychologyCommunicationComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date very little research has addressed the abilities of young participants to respond to a change in visual information provided during movement execution. This study attempted to determine the ability of 45 participants (5, 7, 9 years) to respond to a change in visual information during a discrete rapid aiming movement. A perturbation paradigm where the target size changed after movement onset was used. In the control context, movements were made to each target size (small, medium, large) with no perturbation. In contrast, during the experimental context the target always began as a medium target. Upon movement initiation, the target size could remain constant or might unexpectedly become larger or smaller. Temporal, kinematic, and correction data were collected to determine the control process underlying the aiming movement. No interaction was found between age and condition for movement time (MT), and results indicated that all ages scaled movement time to final target size. The accuracy data revealed the 9-year-old participants were more accurate than the 5- and 7-year-old participants. To determine where the changes in duration were made, the time to and after peak velocity (TTPV, TAPV), and peak velocity values (PV) were examined. The PV values indicated that, during the control context, the participants scaled their movement to the target size. However, during the experimental condition generally no significant differences were found in either measure, suggesting a programmed response based on the original target size. This was supported by the correction data collected prior to peak velocity, lending further support to a programmed response. Following peak velocity, it was found that differences in MT were as a result of time spent in deceleration. This increased TAPV, and increased number of corrections observed, suggest that all participants were using on-line control following peak velocity in response to the change in visual information. The data collected supports a model of control that incorporates both open-loop control during the initial impulse phase, and closed-loop control during the current control phase for participants as young as 5 years.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeuropsychologySame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207