Perceptual-Motor Performance and Associated Kinematics in Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the impairment of perceptual-motor performance often observed during the initial stages of space flight is attributable to the direct effects of microgravity on sensory-motor input-output relationships or to cognitive overload arising from the variety of stressors encountered in this environment. BACKGROUND: Experimental evidence is contradictory, and the present experiment investigated the role of two variables: use of ajoystick with tracking or aiming tasks and degree of arm restraint. METHODS: Five well-trained astronauts performed Fitts' reciprocal aiming task on three occasions (preflight, on the International Space Station, and postflight) under the following conditions: (a) with a stylus or ajoystick, (b) with the arm restrained or unrestrained, and (c) as a single task or together with auditory reaction time (RT) as a dual task. In addition to the speed and accuracy of responses, kinematic measures were derived from the joystick. RESULTS: In space, the slope of Fitts' function increased only in the dual task condition with the joystick. RT was also slowed in the dual condition, and there was an increase in aiming and RT errors. Percentage time to peak acceleration, velocity, and deceleration were increased when the aiming task was performed alone. CONCLUSION: These results support the cognitive overload rather than the microgravity hypothesis and indicate that an impairment in sensory-motor performance is not a necessary concomitant of space flight. APPLICATION: Impairments in perceptual-motor performance in space can be eliminated or mitigated by appropriate training and task design.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".