Transfer Effects of Practice for Simple Alternating Movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In studies on transfer of practice effects, researchers use simple or complex movements that involve a significant cognitive element. In the present study, the authors studied intermanual and intramanual transfer of practice with a task that can be considered intermediate in difficulty. Using finger tapping as a motor task, 30 participants practiced tapping 6 days per week for 2 weeks with the left or right middle finger in a between-subject design. Compared with controls, the unpracticed middle finger of both hands showed significant improvement, along with all of the other unpracticed digits. There was no significant difference in the strength of transfer from the practiced finger to other fingers of the same (intramanual transfer) or the other (intermanual transfer) hand. The authors did not observe an asymmetry of transfer effects (the degree to which transfer depends on the particular hand trained). Last, in terms of speed and regularity of movement, the digits broke down into 2 different clusters; the thumb, index finger, and middle finger formed 1 cluster superior to that formed by the ring and small fingers.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".