Changing the “When” and “What” of Intended Actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans often have to modify the timing and/or type of their planned actions on the basis of new sensory information. In the present experiments, participants planned to make a right index finger keypress 3 s after a warning stimulus but on some trials were interrupted by a temporally unpredictable auditory tone prompting the same action (experiment 1) or a different action (experiment 2). In experiment 1, by comparing the reaction time (RT) to tones presented at different stages of the preparatory period to RT in a simple reaction time condition, we determined the cost of switching from an internally generated mode of response production to an externally triggered mode in situations requiring only a change in when an action is made (i.e., when the tone prompts the action at a different time from the intended time of action). Results showed that the cost occurred for interruption tones delivered 200 ms after a warning stimulus and remained relatively stable throughout most of the preparatory period with a reduction in the magnitude of the cost during the last 200 ms prior to the intended time of movement. In experiment 2, which included conditions requiring a change in both when and what action is produced on the tone, results show a larger cost when the switched to action is different from the action being prepared. We discuss our results in the light of neurophysiological experiments on motor preparation and suggest that intending to act is accompanied by a general inhibitory mechanism preventing premature motor output and a specific excitatory process pertaining to the intended movement. Interactions between these two mechanisms could account for our behavioral results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".