The influence of spatially meaningful auditory stimuli on reaching movements to brief visual stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previously we found that a spatially neutral auditory stimulus improved the execution of aiming movements made toward brief visual stimuli when the stimulus had a long duration (200ms). The goal of the present study was to assess if the spatial location of the auditory stimuli affects the accuracy of aiming movements made toward brief visual stimuli. Sixteen healthy right-handed adults performed aiming movements to three visual targets that consisted of light emitting diodes (LEDs) located behind a semi-opaque screen. The LED appeared either alone for 25, 50, 100, or 200ms; or with a spatially and temporally coincident auditory stimulus. Duration of the visual stimulus was randomized and duration of the auditory stimulus was constant (200ms). Presence or absence of the auditory stimulus was blocked and counterbalanced. Movements were recorded using a 3D motion analysis system (300Hz) and analyzed using a 2 (condition) by 4 (duration) by 3 (target) repeated measures ANOVA. Analyses revealed reaction times were significantly shorter when the auditory stimulus was present and when the stimulus duration was 50ms or longer. Variable error was significantly larger when stimulus duration was 25 and 50ms as well as for movements made toward the centre versus the right and left targets. Time to peak velocity varied with sound, but only for movements made to the left and right targets, revealing differences in online control. The predicted benefit of an auditory stimulus was not found. Future studies will examine how auditory stimuli type and location affect 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. The authors would like to thank Dr. Brian MacNeil for his technical advice.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".