Transfer Effects of Practice for Simple Alternating Movements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it