The effect of exogenous and endogenous visual cues on the spatial and temporal features of movements performed during a rapid target aiming task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both visual and auditory exogenous cues have been shown to bias movement trajectories when participants are required to initiate a goal-directed movement prior to knowing the final target. Comparing exogenous and endogenous cues can provide information about attentional processing during movement performance. This study assessed the temporal and spatial features of movements in response to exogenous versus endogenous visual cues during a rapid decision making aiming task. Twelve right-handed individuals (19-23 years-old; 4males/8females) performed rapid reaching movements toward four targets displayed on a touchscreen monitor. Reaching movements were initiated in response to an auditory cue prior to target identification. 50ms following movement initiation the target was identified by an exogenous (filled square) or endogenous (central arrow) cue. Target conditions were blocked and counter-balanced according to cue type. An Optotrak 3D Investigator (NDI) was used to record participant reach trajectories at 500Hz. Performance variables were analyzed using a 2 condition by 2 location repeated measures ANOVA and movement trajectories using a 2 condition by 2 target by 7 percent of MT. MT was significantly shorter towards the right and in response to exogenous cues. Significant trajectory deviations between the left and right began at 60% of movement trajectory and continued until movement completion, despite cue type. Therefore, spatial averaging occurred for the initial 60% of movement trajectory and was not contingent on cue type. Overall, online attentional processing occurred more rapidly in response to directly interpretable stimuli and spatial characteristics of the trajectory deviation did not vary based on cue type.Acknowledgments: Funding for this research was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (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 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".