Goal-directed aiming and the relative contribution of two online control processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kinematic investigations of rapid goal-directed aiming suggest that the online control of movement occurs via 2 processes. One process involves a comparison of visual information about the relative locations of the hand and target late in the trajectory. A second process has been proposed in which a movement's initial impulse is subject to online control. To investigate the relative influence of these 2 types of online control, kinematic analysis of participants' rapid goal-directed movements was conducted. Upon movement initiation, the environment was manipulated such that participants were exposed to a factorial combination of perturbations designed to have unique impacts on either late trajectory or initial impulse control. The Müller-Lyer illusion creates a bias in the perceived location of the target relative to the hand and affects late adjustments to the movement trajectory. Displacing the background over which movements are performed, either in or opposite to the direction of the movement, creates a mismatch between perceived and expected limb velocity, affecting early online control. Results of the Miller-Lyer-only and moving-background-only conditions replicated the previous evidence of late trajectory and early control adjustments, respectively. More interestingly, end movement accuracy measures yielded noninteractive main effects of the 2 perturbations, suggesting that the 2 forms of control operate independently.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".