Startle reveals independent preparation and initiation of the antagonist in targeted ballistic movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscles involved in rapid, targeted movements about a single joint exhibit a triphasic electromyographic pattern. The first burst of activity in the agonist muscle (AG1) accelerates the limb towards the target while the antagonist (ANT) burst acts as a brake and the second agonist (AG2) burst dampens terminal oscillations. Early work involving such protocols as movement perturbations (limb blocking) suggested that for short movements, the entire pattern was prepared and initiated in advance (Keele, 1968; Wadman et al., 1979). In contrast, recent TMS evidence has suggested that each burst may be prepared and executed separately (Irlbacher et al., 2006; MacKinnon & Rothwell, 2000). The purpose of this study was to investigate the independent initiation of each component of the triphasic pattern with movements of different amplitudes. Participants performed rapid elbow extension movements to various targets (10, 20, 40, & 60 degrees). On some trials a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), which is thought to initiate prepared movements at short latency, was delivered at the onset of the AG1 burst with the intent to examine preparation of the ANT. The SAS significantly shortened the AG1-ANT interval in the 10 and 20 degree movements but not in the 40 and 60 degree movements. The results of this study suggest that the ANT burst was prepared and initiated independently from the AG1 burst and that preparation of the ANT occurred online for movements of larger amplitudes. Acknowledgments: This study was supported 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".