End-state comfort in two object manipulation tasks: Investigating how the movement context influences planning in children, young and older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scharoun et al., (in preparation) demonstrated that movement context (pantomime, pantomime with image/glass as guide, actual use) influences end-state comfort (ESC) planning across the lifespan. In the present study, we advanced this work in two ways. First, we tested whether we would see more ESC with a more familiar object (glass) relative to a less familiar (hammer) one. Secondly, we examined how the movement context (pantomime, using a dowel as the tool and actual use) influenced ESC planning across these two tasks. Children (ages 5-11, n=56), young (Mage = 22.9; n = 21) and older adults (Mage = 69.1; n=21) picked up an overturned glass to pour water and a hammer to hit a nail, where the handle faced away from the participant. Preliminary results revealed more ESC in actual use compared to using a dowel and in pantomime, which did not differ. In addition, more ESC was displayed in the hammer task. Age-related differences revealed less ESC in 5- to 6-year-olds compared to older participants, and in 9- to 10-year-olds compared to young adults. This supports adult-like ESC planning beyond age 10 (Wunsch et al., 2013). As a group, older adults did not differ from young adults; however, more ESC was displayed in actual use compared to pantomime in the old (70+) compared to young (60-69) older adults. This adds to our knowledge of when and at what rate motor planning skills are developing and declining and how movement context (tool use versus pantomime) affects the expression of these skills. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (SMS, PJB, and EAR), the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (SMS) and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario (EAR) for funding.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".