Investigating Differences in Reaction Time and Preparatory Activation as a Result of Varying Accuracy Requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The preparation and initiation of movement has previously been described using a neural accumulation model; this model involves an increase of neural activation in the motor cortex (M1) from baseline to a subthreshold level following a warning signal, which is maintained until presentation of an imperative stimulus (IS). Activity then increases until reaching movement initiation threshold. This model predicts that variability in activation during preparation may influence reaction time (RT) and its variability. The purpose of this thesis project was to determine whether differences in RT/variability of RT during the completion of tasks with varying levels of complexity may be attributable to differences in neural excitability in M1. To test this prediction, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) delivered concurrently with an IS was used to determine neural excitability for movements with different accuracy demands. It was hypothesized that higher accuracy demands would result in lowered amplitude and/or greater variability of neural activation, and consequently slower/more variable RT. Fifteen healthy participants completed a simple RT task involving a targeted wrist extension movement under three different accuracy conditions (easy, moderate, difficult). TMS was delivered concurrently with the IS on 50% of trials during each condition. While pilot testing showed RT differences between accuracy conditions (Appendix A), the data presented here failed to detect significant differences in RT latency (F(2, 28) = .074, p = .929) or variability (F(1.432, 20.053) = .633, p = .538) between conditions . Similarly, no difference in MEP amplitude was observed between difficulty conditions (F(2, 28) = 2.439, p = .106). However, a subset of participants (n = 7) did show significant RT increases between easy and hard conditions (t(6) = 2.531, p = .045), but this subset still failed to show differences in MEP amplitude (t(6) = 1.157, p = .291) or variability (t(6) = 1.545, p = .173), suggesting that preparatory levels at the IS may be similar for movements involving both high and low accuracy demands.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".