MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2732683260

The impact of distractor timing on reaching movements to visual and auditory targets

2014· article· en· W2732683260 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michele S Berthelette, Kelsey M Brown, Cheryl M. Glazebrook

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModality (human–computer interaction)Repeated measures designMovement (music)AudiologyPsychologyMultisensory integrationVisual perceptionAuditory stimuliCognitive psychologyPerceptionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSensory systemNeuroscienceMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge of multisensory-motor integration is important for understanding humans’ interactions with their environments and the design of human-machine interfaces. The present study explored the effects of multisensory distractors presented either early (120ms) or late (240ms) during movement execution. Twelve right-handed participants (7 male, M =21 (SD=2.39) years) were trained to perform 300ms reaching movements. Experimental trials were performed in two separate blocks: 1) visual targets paired with auditory distractors; 2) auditory targets paired with visual distractors. The distractor was either in the same location, or to the left or right of the target. Red lights and audio buzzers (1000kHz) provided visual and auditory stimuli respectively. All stimuli were 100ms and were installed behind a black fabric screen to occlude the locations. Three dimensional spatiotemporal data was collected using an Optotrak 3D Investigator at 400Hz. Performance measures were analyzed using a 2 Target Modality (visual, auditory) by 3 Distractor Condition (early, late, none) repeated measures ANOVA. Trajectories were analyzed separately for target modality using a 2 Distractor Condition by 5 Distractor Location by 4 Movement Proportion repeated measures ANOVA. Main effect for reaction time was consistent with our prediction that movement preparation towards an auditory target (426ms) takes longer than a visual target (324ms). While there were no differences in movement time (MT), participants reached significantly higher peak velocities when aiming towards a visual (1650mm/s) versus auditory (1143mm/s) target. Analyses of the horizontal trajectories of visual targets revealed a significant distractor condition by movement proportion interaction. Participants continued to adjust their movements throughout the trajectory when an auditory distractor occurred late in movements. If the distractor occurred early, they did not adjust their movements after 75% of MT. Participant’s ability to perform online control was impacted by the presence of an early auditory distractor when aiming towards a visual target. Acknowledgments: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and Manitoba Health Research Council.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and SportSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207