A timeline of preparatory activity prior to response initiation: Evidence from startle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In simple reaction time (RT) tasks, movement preparation can be modelled as an increase in neural activation to a sub-threshold level, with maintenance of this level until the go-signal. However, the absolute time requirement for response preparation following a warning signal (WS) is currently unknown, as tasks typically provide long foreperiods to ensure maximal preparation. The purpose of the present experiment was to determine the minimum length of time required to prepare a response. To probe the preparatory state of the motor response a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) was used, as it has been shown to cause the involuntary early initiation of sufficiently prepared movements. Participants (n=17) completed 150 trials of a simple RT task requiring targeted wrist extension. A short (500ms) fixed foreperiod between the WS and go-signal was used to force rapid preparation of the response, whereas a long (8.5-10.5s) inter-trial interval was used to discourage a continual high state of preparation. A SAS was randomly presented on 30 trials at one of six time points: 0, 100, 200, 300, 400, or 500ms following the WS. Results showed that the proportion of startle trials where the intended response was elicited at short latency (
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".