Spatiotemporal interactions between arm movements: Kinematics not dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have previously demonstrated that reaching latency is affected by the direction of a preceding arm movement; reaches in the same direction have greater latency than reaches in opposite directions (Cowper-Smith et al., 2013). Under constant loading conditions, the direction of reaching is directly related to the muscles activated to produce the movement; as such, it is unclear if the effect we observed is due to movement direction (kinematics) or to muscle recruitment (dynamics). In the present study, participants completed pairs of arm movements to the left or right of centre; randomly, direction was the same or different for each pair. The first movement was made with a rubber band on the wrist pulling to the left, right, or neither side, whereas the second was always made without the band. Latencies were greater for same direction compared to opposite direction movements, regardless of the direction of pull from the rubber band. This indicates that the interaction between arm movements occurs at the level of kinematics rather than dynamics, possibly arising from motor control centres encoding intended movement trajectory.Acknowledgments: Funded by NSERC (Westwood).
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 | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".