MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599918346

Evidence against the automaticity of motor simulation in action prediction: Separately acquired visual-motor and visual representations can be used flexibly to aid in prediction accuracy

2016· article· en· W2599918346 on OpenAlexaff
Desmond Mulligan, Nicola J. Hodges

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotor learningTask (project management)Visual perceptionAutomaticityFlexibility (engineering)PsychologyComputer sciencePerceptionArtificial intelligenceEngineeringCognitionMathematicsStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have shown that individuals with visual-motor experience exhibit interference from secondary motor tasks when making perceptual decisions. This is consistent with the motor simulation hypothesis of action prediction. Because of the interference, despite concurrent accrual of visual and motor experiences, this simulation appears to be automatic. However, it has been suggested that we can acquire separate (visual)motor and purely visual representations that allow for accuracy in the presence of motor interference. Therefore, we trained people (N=16 to date) to develop separate (visual)motor and visual representations. "Motor" practice involved learning to throw darts at 3 sections of a dartboard. "Visual" practice involved matching occluded throws with landing outcomes, on video. One group (Motor>Vis) underwent motor practice on day1 and visual on day2. The Vis>Motor group did the reverse. Prediction tasks (judging outcomes from occluded clips) were performed by both groups before and after practice each day, and some trials involved secondary motor tasks (pushing on a force gauge). Consistent with previous work, the Motor>Vis group improved prediction accuracy on day1, except when performing the secondary task. After visual practice on day2, prediction accuracy was maintained, but now there was no interference. The Vis>Motor group, after day1 visual training, showed a similar improvement in prediction accuracy, with no decrement under secondary task conditions. After motor training on day2, accuracy was maintained, without interference. These data suggest that motor simulation is not automatic, and that separately-acquired motor and visual experiences allow flexibility in adopting prediction strategies most robust to external task demands.Acknowledgments: The last author would like to acknowledge NSERC for financial support of this research

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAction Observation and SynchronizationFrench-language works237,207