The influence of auditory stimuli on reaching movements to brief visual stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although vision is considered the preferred modality for spatial information, researchers have shown that an auditory stimulus can improve detection of brief visual stimuli. The present study sought to determine if a spatially neutral auditory stimulus also improves performance of rapid aiming movements to brief visual stimuli. Healthy right-handed adults (N=13) performed aiming movements to the perceived location of a light emitting diode (LED) located behind a semi-opaque screen. In one condition the LED appeared in isolation for 25, 50, 100, or 200 ms. In a second condition a temporally coincident, but spatially neutral, auditory stimulus was presented. Presence of the auditory stimulus was blocked and counterbalanced across participants and stimulus duration was randomized. Movements were recorded using a 3D motion analysis system (300Hz) and analyzed using a 2 condition by 4 duration repeated measures ANOVA. Analysis revealed that reaction times were significantly shorter when visual and auditory stimuli were concurrent. Greater spatial variability was exhibited at peak deceleration and final end location when the stimulus duration was 50 ms, regardless of the presence of an auditory stimulus. Therefore, differences in online control were evident, however, the predicted benefit of an auditory stimulus was not found. Future studies will examine the impact of spatially meaningful auditory stimuli on movement control.Acknowledgments: This research was funded by the University of Manitoba, the Manitoba Health Research Council, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".