Temporal and Spatial Allocation of Motor Preparation During a Mixed-Strategy Game
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adopting a mixed response strategy in competitive situations can prevent opponents from exploiting predictable play. What drives stochastic action selection is unclear given that choice patterns suggest that, on average, players are indifferent to available options during mixed-strategy equilibria. To gain insight into this stochastic selection process, we examined how motor preparation was allocated during a mixed-strategy game. If selection processes on each trial reflect a global indifference between options, then there should be no bias in motor preparation (unbiased preparation hypothesis). If, however, differences exist in the desirability of options on each trial then motor preparation should be biased toward the preferred option (biased preparation hypothesis). We tested between these alternatives by examining how saccade preparation was allocated as human subjects competed against an adaptive computer opponent in an oculomotor version of the game "matching pennies." Subjects were free to choose between two visual targets using a saccadic eye movement. Saccade preparation was probed by occasionally flashing a visual distractor at a range of times preceding target presentation. The probability that a distractor would evoke a saccade error, and when it failed to do so, the probability of choosing each of the subsequent targets quantified the temporal and spatial evolution of saccade preparation, respectively. Our results show that saccade preparation became increasingly biased as the time of target presentation approached. Specifically, the spatial locus to which saccade preparation was directed varied from trial to trial, and its time course depended on task timing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".