Motor Planning Influences the Perceived Timing of Vibrotactile Stimuli in an Amplitude-Dependent Manner
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
The authors characterized how motor planning influences temporal order judgment (TOJ) tasks. They examined this by applying vibrotactile stimulation during the planning stages of a bimanual arm movement that would bring the arms into a crossed configuration. The authors have previously shown that planning to cross the arms induces a subjective reversal of spatially defined temporal order judgments that evolves over the course of the planning period. It was unclear, however, whether this effect is modulated by the extent to which the arms would be crossed after movement. The authors examined this issue by having participants plan to move to 4 different targets that would leave the arms in crossed configurations of varying extents. The results demonstrate that even though cutaneous stimuli were applied before the movements, if participants were planning to move into a more crossed configuration, performance on the TOJ task worsened depending on where they were in the planning process. This data suggest the brain uses planning signals to predict sensations from impending movements in a context-dependent manner.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it