Inhibition of reaching: Facilitatory and inhibitory effects of a non-predictive cue differ between attentional and motor effects over left and right space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to action-centered models of attention, there is a coupling between attention and response planning processes. Supporting these models, previous research has shown that reach trajectories deviate towards a distracting cue at short (750ms). The deviations resemble the pattern of facilitatory and inhibitory reaction time (RT) effects seen in similar paradigms using keypress responses (e.g., Posner & Cohen, 1984). Here, we used 5 CTOAs (125ms intervals) ranging from 100-600ms to determine the relationship between trajectory and RT effects. Right-handed participants performed aiming movements to 3 possible target locations aligned horizontally to the participant following a non-predictive cue. Typical RT effects were found with facilitation to the cued location at the shortest CTOA and inhibition at later CTOAs. However, at the longest CTOA, RTs to the cued location and the right cue were similar. Trajectories deviated toward the right cue at the 100ms CTOA and then towards the left cue at the 225ms CTOA. Trajectories deviated away first from the right cue at the 475ms CTOA and then away from the left cue at the 600ms CTOA. Although the results are consistent with action-centered attention, the staggering of the trajectory deviations over right and left cues indicates that the timing facilitation and inhibition in the attentional and motor system may differ between right and left space.Acknowledgments: Research was funded by NSERC
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".