MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080843525 · doi:10.3200/jmbr.36.3.327-338

Practice Effects on the Use of Visual and Haptic Cues During Grasping

2004· article· en· W2080843525 on OpenAlex
Adam Dubrowski, Luc Proteau, Heather Carnahan

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCued speechSensory cueObject (grammar)Haptic technologyComputer scienceTest (biology)Cue-dependent forgettingPsychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer visionCommunicationCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mapping of arbitrary color cues onto object properties such as mass can influence the control of fingertip forces. One can view the development of that mapping as a motor learning issue, and its development should therefore be influenced by practice schedule. During an acquisition phase, 24 participants lifted color-cued objects that differed in mass. The masses were presented in either blocked or random orders. A test phase consisted of lifts of a midmass object; on some lifts, the object's mass was unexpectedly changed. The change was either accurately color cued or miscued. Only blocked practice led to visually mediated scaling of fingertip forces to object mass. During the test phase, previous blocked practice resulted in reliance on visual cues, and random practice led to a reliance on haptics (sense of touch). Those findings suggest that the integration of arbitrary color cues and haptic information is dependent on practice conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it