Specificity versus Variability: Effects of Practice Conditions on the Use of Afferent Information for Manual Aiming
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
Although proponents of the motor schema theory hold that a decrease in the reliance on afferent information will occur with practice in consort with the development of motor programs, supporters of the specificity of practice by hypothesis suggest that a performer's reliance on the available sources of afferent information during acquisition increases with the amount of practice. To reconcile these competing positions, four groups of 9 participants aimed to targets under either a constant or a variable practice schedule, with or without vision of the effector. After modest (15 trials) and moderate (150 trials) practice, participants were tested in both their own and in the alternate vision condition. Results indicate that the utilization of online kinesthetic information was enhanced through practice regardless of the availability of vision during acquisition. This was especially true for the groups practicing under a variable practice schedule
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it