The influence of environmental context in interpersonal observation-execution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cyclical upper-limb movements can involuntarily deviate from the primary movement axis and into a secondary axis when the performer concurrently observes incongruent biological motion. The current study examined the influence of the observed environmental context on movement interference. Participants executed continuous horizontal arm movements while observing horizontal (congruent) or curvilinear (horizontal with an incongruent vertical component) movements. The observed movements were executed with small or large objects posing as an obstacle or a distractor. For curvilinear movements, the obstacle was displayed within movement space preventing horizontal movement meaning the observed movement was rational. On the other hand, the distractor was displayed below movement space meaning the observed movement was irrational. For horizontal movements, the obstacle and distractor were located below movement space, but in the same relative location as the curvilinear movements. It was found that, overall, the incongruent curvilinear movements generated greater deviation into the secondary axis than the horizontal movements. Although there were no systematic differences between contexts for the curvilinear movement, there was greater deviation when observing horizontal movements with the large obstacle than for other contexts. This latter finding is interpreted to indicate that the performer recognized and internalized the potential collision that was being observed. These findings indicate the environmental context can modulate motor contagion. Moreover, the differential effects between congruent and incongruent movement deviations suggests a role of matching observed and executed actions, and supports the view of a dynamic interplay between action and movement intentions (Ondobaka et al., 2012).Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Nathan Foster for his assistance in creating the visual stimuli. This research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".