Electroencephalographic correlates in memory guided aiming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the encephalographic (EEG) correlates associated with memory guided reaching were examined. Participants performed aiming movements using a stylus on a graphics tablet with visual stimuli projected onto a mirror positioned above the aiming surface. For the experimental protocol, individuals were first provided with a cue followed by a brief preview of a target. The cue was indicative of the delay between the offset of the target preview and the imperative stimulus to move (i.e. 2 s or 5 s delay); and also whether the target would reappear when the imperative stimulus was presented (i.e. FV or NV). Event related brain potentials associated with target encoding; the expectancy of movement onset; and visually guided versus memory guided reaching were examined. Kinematic analyses were also used to examine the behavioural manifestations of the aiming movements. Results from the EEG analysis revealed a modulation of brain activity based upon the expectant delay between the target preview and movement initiation, which was irrespective of the visual condition. The corresponding behavioural analyses revealed similar results to previous memory guided reaching experiments (e.g. Elliott & Madalena, 1987), however it appeared that FV movements with a 5 s delay were also compromised in some respects. In all, the time from the initial encoding of the target to the impetus to move, may have larger implications in both memory and visually guided reaches than previously thought.Acknowledgments: 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".