Disorders in Timing and Force of Finger Opening in Overarm Throws Made by Cerebellar Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is agreement that an important sign of cerebellar dysfunction is disorder in timing of movement, it appears that authors who study different behaviors mean different things when they use the term "timing," and that the underlying mechanisms are likely to be different. For overarm throwing, skilled throwers can time ball release with a precision of less than 7 ms, whereas cerebellar subjects show a large variability of 50 ms or more in this timing. Furthermore, cerebellar patients show a larger variability in the amplitude of finger opening which could either reflect a disorder in force, or result indirectly from the increased variability in timing. To determine whether timing and force of finger opening were dependent variables, the time of ball release was plotted against the amplitude of finger opening. In control subjects these two parameters were related, with early (mistimed) throws having smaller finger amplitudes. However, in cerebellar subjects the increased variability in finger amplitude could not be accounted for by the increased variability in timing. Similarly, the increased timing windows could not be explained by disorder in force at the fingers. It is concluded that the abnormal finger opening that occurs in cerebellar patients when making overarm throws results from increased variability in both the timing and force of finger extension. Whether the increased variability in timing is a disorder in triggering finger opening at the right moment, or is due to a failure to combine finger opening appropriately with the hand trajectory, remains to be determined.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".