Inhibition of motor-related activation during a simple reaction time task requiring visuomotor mental rotation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated whether differences in reaction time (RT) between movements initiated to a visual cue (directly cued) versus movements initiated to a location other than the visual cue (indirectly cued) arise because of varying levels of inhibition within the motor system during response preparation. Unlike typical visuomotor mental rotation (VMR) experiments, this study employed a simple RT paradigm to allow response preparation to occur in advance of the imperative stimulus (IS). Participants responded to the IS by either moving directly to the location of a visual cue or to a location that required a mental transformation between the visual cue and the intended movement goal (i.e., a location 60, 90, or 120 degrees rotated with respect to the visual cue). To probe motor-related activation during response preparation, a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS, 124 dB) was randomly presented 500 ms, 1,000 ms, or 1,500 ms after visual cue onset, but before the IS. Results showed similar RTs during nonstartle control trials regardless of rotation angle and whether trials were completed in a random or blocked design. Additionally, SAS trials showed a low incidence of early response triggering across all time points regardless of whether the movement was directly or indirectly cued. In contrast, directly cued movements performed outside of the VMR context showed a high incidence of SAS response triggering. These results suggest that when a stimulus to target-goal transformation might be required, inhibitory suppression of motor-related activation arises regardless of whether the final movement is directly or indirectly cued.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".