On your mark: Examining the self-selection of starting positions during the control of goal-directed aiming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual differences in the planning and control of rapid goal-directed actions have been observed under various visual and sensory conditions. However, explanations and causes of these differences have yet to be identified beyond socio-cultural and evolutionary explanations. The purpose of the current experiment was to examine potential differences in movement planning strategies. Participants completed a rapid aiming task, first used by Augustyn and Rosenbaum (2005), where individuals self-selected a start position anywhere on a line between two potential target locations that were equally likely to become the target. Individuals should have bisected the line when the potential targets were of equal size and biased their start position toward the smaller target if the targets differed in size in order to equalize the information processing and potential movement time (Fitts, 1954). Participants spent significantly less time selecting their start position when the targets were the same size rather than different sizes for the line of longer length, F(1,62)=11.58, p=0.001, µ2=0.157. Participants failed to adjust their start position toward the smaller of two targets regardless of the length of the line between the targets, F(1,62)=336.99, p=0.001, µ2=0.845. Males reacted to the target significantly faster than females, F(1,62)=5.76, p=0.019, µ2=0.085. Males also completed their movements in a shorter time than females except for when the line was shorter with two small targets, F(1,62)=4.13, p=0.046, µ2=0.063. Results are discussed in the context of modern models of goal-directed aiming and the potential contribution of endogenous hormone levels to the functioning of the human sensory-motor system.Acknowledgments: Nipissing University Internal Research Grant (S. Hansen).
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 | 0.001 | 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".