MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740202632

Decreasing the preparation cost for bimanual asymmetric movements

2014· article· en· W2740202632 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jarrod Blinch, Ian M. Franks, Mark G. Carpenter, Romeo Chua

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCued speechStimulus (psychology)Choice reaction timeMovement (music)PsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCommunicationCognitive psychologyComputer scienceNeuroscienceMedicineCognition
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Movement preparation of bimanual asymmetric movements is longer than bimanual symmetric movements in choice reaction-time conditions, even when movements are directly cued (Blinch et al., 2014). This bimanual asymmetric cost may be caused by greater processing demands on response programming, but this requires further investigation. The present experiment tested the demands on response programming for bimanual movements by temporally separating the preparation of each arm. This was achieved by precuing the target of one arm before the imperative stimulus. We asked: What preparation occurred in advance for the precued arm? The answer to this question would suggest which process causes the bimanual asymmetric cost. Advance movement preparation was examined by comparing reaction times with and without a precue for the left target and by using the start-react effect. Participants made bimanual symmetric and asymmetric reaching movements in simple and 2-choice reaction-time conditions and a condition with a precue for the left target. We found a bimanual asymmetric cost in 2-choice conditions, and the asymmetric cost was significantly smaller when the left target was precued. This result suggests: 1) that the precued movement was not fully programmed but partially programmed before the imperative stimulus, and 2) that the asymmetric cost was caused by greater processing demands on response programming. The results of the startle trials also supported these two conclusions. Overall, the results support the notion that bimanual movements are not the sum of two unimanual movements; instead, the two arms of a bimanual movement are unified into a functional unit. When one target is precued, this critical unification likely occurs during response programming. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Brendan D Cameron, Dana Maslovat, and Chris J Forgaard for their helpful comments and suggestions, Keith R Lohse for helping to calculate the within-participant confidence intervals, and JA Holmes for processing the deltoid EMG. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada supported this research with a discovery grant awarded to Romeo Chua.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designOther design
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 topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207