Age-group differences in beginning-state comfort reveal an increase in motor planning capabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objects can be grasped in different ways to ensure a movement plan is aligned with the intended action. The current study assessed grasp posture in joint action object manipulation in children (ages 6–11, n = 68), young adults ( n = 21), and older adults ( n = 23). Participants performed two actions (pickup and pass; pickup and pass for use) within two movement contexts (using a dowel as if it were the actual object; actual object use), using two objects (glass and hammer) that differed in use-dependent experience. Beginning-state comfort (prioritizing a comfortable initial hand posture for an object recipient) was assessed. Taken together, findings support the notion that the ability to anticipate the intended action, and thus consider an action partner in one’s action plan, increases with age. With age and use-dependent experience, it can be argued that there is a shift from stimulus-driven, familiar responses, to considering affordances and task demands. Together, findings add to our understanding of changes in motor planning capabilities across the life span.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".