MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922840936

Bimanual finger movements are not susceptible to early response triggering by a startling acoustic stimulus

2018· article· en· W2922840936 on OpenAlexaff
Faven Teku, Victoria Smith, Neil M. Drummond, Anthony N. Carlsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport (SCAPPS refereed abstracts repository) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyStimulus (psychology)Moro reflexIndex fingerPhysical medicine and rehabilitationReflexAudiologyNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyMedicineAnatomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pre-programmed responses can be triggered early and involuntarily when a loud startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) is presented. This effect has been attributed to additional drive from reticulospinal centres associated with the startle reflex. However, movements that are mainly innervated by cortico-motoneural pathways, such as intrinsic hand movements, are resistant to startle-triggering. This absence of StartReact implies that only movements with substantial reticulospinal drive can be triggered early by a SAS. Recent evidence suggests increased involvement of the reticulospinal tract in bilateral compared to unilateral actions. Therefore, this study investigated the susceptibility of unimanual versus bimanual finger movements to early release by a SAS, with the prediction that only bimanual movements would be subject to the StartReact effect. Participants (n=10) performed 80 simple reaction time (RT) trials for both unimanual and bimanual index finger abduction tasks in response to a control tone (82dB) or SAS (115dB). Results showed that RTs were significantly shorter for both unimanual and bimanual movements on SAS trials (p

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport (SCAPPS refereed abstracts repository)Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207