MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2949578293

The timing of early aperture shaping metrics evince feedback- and feedfoward-based corrections

2012· article· en· W2949578293 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Bryce, Scott A. Holmes, Matthew Heath

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAperture (computer memory)Metric (unit)Computer scienceMathematicsPhysicsAcousticsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jeannerod's (1984: J Mot Behav) seminal work provided an understanding of the timing of several transport and aperture shaping metrics underlying goal-directed grasping. Most notably, Jeannerod's work is recognized for defining the invariant timing of peak grip aperture (75.7% of grasping time). It is, however, important to recognize that Jeannerod's work, as well as much subsequent research, has not focused on the spatiotemporal properties of early aperture shaping. Indeed, the importance of such an examination is recognized by the results of earlier work by our group showing that distinct visual metrics support early and late aperture shaping (e.g., Holmes et al. 2011: Vis Res). To that end, the present investigation examined the spatiotemporal properties of an early aperture shaping metric (i.e. peak aperture velocity: PAV) in a large corpus of participants (N = 123) when grasping differently sized target objects. Results showed that the magnitude and size of grip aperture at PAV increased linearly as a function of increasing object size. Notably, however, the time to PAV exhibited a non-normal distribution that was exemplified by two subgroups. In particular, one group achieved PAV early in (i.e., at 20% of,) the response whereas a second group achieved PAV later in (i.e., at > ~50% of,) the response. Such findings indicate that PAV is a temporally variant metric and may therefore reflect feedback- or feedforward-based modifications to an unfolding aperture trajectory.Acknowledgments: Supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant and an NSERC USRA

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)0.021
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMotor Control and Adaptation→French-language works237,207→