Altered Triggering of a Prepared Movement by a Startling Stimulus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experiment is reported that investigated the effects of an auditory startling stimulus on a compound movement task. Previous findings have shown that, in a targeting task, a secondary movement can be initiated based on the proprioceptive information provided by a primary movement. Studies involving the presentation of a startling stimulus have shown that in reaction time (RT) tasks, prepared ballistic movements could be released early when participants are startled. In the present study we sought to determine whether the secondary component in an ongoing movement task, once prepared, could also be triggered by a startling stimulus. Participants performed a slow active elbow extension (22 degrees /s), opening their hand when the arm passed 55 degrees of extension from the starting point. An unexpected 124 dB startle stimulus was presented 5, 25, or 45 degrees into the movement. Findings showed that, when participants were startled, the secondary component was triggered despite incongruent kinesthetic information. However, this only occurred when the startle was presented late in the primary movement. This suggests that the secondary movement was not prepared prior to task initiation, but was "loaded" into lower brain structures at some point during the movement in preparation to be triggered by the CNS. This occurred late in the movement sequence, but >/=400 ms prior to reaching the target. These findings indicate that, in addition to ballistic RT tasks, a startle can be used to probe response preparation in ongoing compound movement tasks.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".