Motoric interactions with another person: How do individuals with autism spectrum disorder adjust?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When asking for a cup of coffee, performing the goal of the movement (grasping the cup) might be different for the person serving the coffee. These types of coordination occur on a daily basis, however little attention is paid to how the end goal for the person handing the coffee is accomplished or what they perceive the end goal is (i.e. person drinks their coffee or they place the coffee on the counter?). This type of interpersonal has profound implications for individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) research, as it may be more difficult for them to anticipate how another person would use an object. Therefore the purpose of this experiment was to determine how controls and individuals with ASD would interact with a confederate was asking to hand a tool to the confederate. Theory of Mind (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985) would suggest that these individuals may more difficulties in producing this joint-action paradigm. However the results demonstrate that both the controls and individuals with ASD hand the tool to the confederate in a manner that facilitates the use by the confederate (i.e. comfortable orientation for the confederate). This suggests that both the controls and individuals with ASD incurred the cost of the movement (awkward posture) to allow the confederate to have a beginning state comfort to accomplish the task in an easier manner.Acknowledgments: NSERC, Woodview Manor
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".