Independent planning of timing and sequencing for complex movements.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current studies examined the processes involved in response sequencing and timing initiation for complex, multiple-component movements. Participants performed a 3 key-press sequence in simple and choice reaction time (RT) paradigms (Experiment 1), or a study time paradigm that allowed the participants to control the foreperiod delay, which is thought to reflect advance preparation duration (Experiment 2). Sequencing complexity was manipulated by using either the same hand and effector for all key presses (low complexity) or different hands/effectors across key presses (high complexity) while timing initiation complexity was manipulated by using either an isochronous (low complexity) or nonisochronous (high complexity) timing pattern. Increasing sequencing complexity had little effect on simple RT but increased participant-controlled foreperiod delay (i.e., study time). Conversely, increasing timing initiation complexity had no effect on foreperiod delay but increased simple RT. These results provide compelling evidence that in a simple RT paradigm, sequencing preparation is performed during the foreperiod while preparation of timing initiation is delayed until the RT interval. Furthermore, choice RT increased with sequencing complexity and was relatively unaffected by timing initiation complexity, indicative of sequencing preparation occurring during the choice RT interval and preparation of timing initiation occurring online. Collectively, the data indicate a dissociation and independence of the preparation of timing initiation and sequencing for complex movements. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".