Bimanual Interference in Rapid Discrete Movements Is Task Specific and Occurs at Multiple Levels of Processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been suggested that interference in symbolically cued bimanual reaction time tasks is caused primarily by the perceptual processing of stimuli and not by motor preparation of the required movements. Here subjects made movements of the right and left index fingers that varied in their spatial and motor congruence. Spatial congruence was manipulated by presenting symbolic cues (i.e., pairs of letters) on a computer screen cueing the required movement directions. Motor congruence was manipulated by altering hand orientation. Results showed that interference occurs at both the stage of stimulus processing and the stage of motor preparation. These effects were reflected in the latencies of the different bimanual movements with both motor incongruence and spatial incongruence causing significant increases in reaction time. However, spatially incongruent movements that were made in response to incongruent visual cues demonstrated changes in reaction time that were more than double those of movements that required simultaneous activation of nonhomologous muscles. Therefore in symbolically cued bimanual reaction-time tasks, although both motor and spatial constraints operate, there is a clear dominance of spatial incongruence on performance. While motor congruence effects are likely due to cross-facilitation in corticospinal pathways, spatial incongruence effects are probably due to interference between the mechanisms that identify incongruent stimuli and translate these cues into the appropriate 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".