MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2473627624 · doi:10.1080/00222895.2016.1161588

The Impact of Strategic Trajectory Optimization on Illusory Target Biases During Goal-Directed Aiming

2016· article· en· W2473627624 on OpenAlexafffund
James W. Roberts, James J. Burkitt, Digby Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTrajectoryPsychologyCognitive psychologyComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During rapid aiming, movements are planned and executed to avoid worst-case outcomes that require time and energy to correct. As such, downward movements initially undershoot the target to avoid corrections against gravity. Illusory target context can also impact aiming bias. Here, the authors sought to determine how strategic biases mediate illusory biases. Participants aimed to Müller-Lyer figures in different directions (forward, backward, up, down). Downward biases emerged late in the movement and illusory biases emerged from peak velocity. The illusory effects were greater for downward movements at terminal endpoint. These results indicate that strategic biases interact with the limb-target control processes associated with illusory biases. Thus, multiple control processes during rapid aiming may combine and later affect endpoint accuracy (D. Elliott et al., 2010 Elliott, D., Hansen, S., Grierson, L. E. M., Lyons, J., Bennett, S. J., & Hayes, S. J. (2010). Goal-directed aiming: two components but multiple processes. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1023–1044.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Motor BehaviorSame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207