MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2949539045 · doi:10.1101/679811

Reach and Grasp Altered in Pantomime String-Pulling: A Test of the Action/Perception Theory in a Bilateral Reaching Task

2019· preprint· en· W2949539045 on OpenAlexaff
Surjeet Singh, Alexei Mandziak, Kalob Barr, Ashley A. Blackwell, Majid H. Mohajerani, Douglas G. Wallace, Ian Q. Whishaw

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsString (physics)Cued speechMovement (music)GRASPPerceptionPsychologyAction (physics)CommunicationComputer visionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsCognitive psychologyPhysicsNeuroscienceAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The action/perception theory of cortical organization is supported by the finding that pantomime hand movements of reaching and grasping are different from real movements. Frame-by-frame video analysis and MATLAB ® based tracking examined real/pantomime differences in a bilaterally movement, string-pulling, pulling down a rope with hand-over-hand movements. Sensory control of string-pulling varied from visually-direct when cued, visually-indirect when non cued and somatosensory controlled in the absence of vision. Cued grasping points were visual tracked and the pupils dilated in anticipation of the grasp, but when noncued, visual tracking and pupil responses were absent. In real string-pulling, grasping and releasing the string featured an arpeggio movement in which the fingers close and open in the sequence 5 through 1 (pinki first, thumb last); in pantomime, finger order was reversed, 1 through 5. In real string-pulling, the hand is fully opened and closed to grasp and release; in pantomime, hand opening was attenuated and featured a gradual opening centered on the grasp. The temporal structure of arm movements in real string-pulling featured up-arm movements that were faster than down-arm movement. In pantomime, up/down movements had similar speed. In real string-pulling, up/down arm movements were direct and symmetric; in pantomime, they were more circular and asymmetric. That pantomime string-pulling featured less motoric and temporal complexity than real string-pulling is discussed in relation to the action/perception theory and in relation to the idea that pantomimed string-pulling may feature the substitution of gestures for real movement. Significant Statement Most laboratory studies investigating hand movements made by humans feature single hand movements, the current study presents a novel string-pulling task to study bimanual coordination of left and right hands in real and pantomime conditions. The results show that pantomime string-pulling featured less motoric and temporal complexity than real string-pulling. These findings are relevant to the contemporary theory of action and perception that the dorsal stream (parietal cortex) is related to actions and the ventral stream (temporal cortex) is related to perception.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicMotor Control and Adaptation→French-language works237,207→