MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984337074 · doi:10.1123/mc.2019-0010

Antipointing Reaches Do Not Adhere to Width-Based Manipulations of Fitts’ (1954) Equation

2019· article· en· W2984337074 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMotor Control · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFitts's lawStimulus (psychology)MathematicsComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)PsychologyMovement (music)Artificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyPhysicsControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reaches with overlapping stimulus-response spatial relations (propointing) adhere to speed-accuracy relations as defined by Paul Fitts' index of difficulty equation (IDFitts: in bits of information). This movement principle is attributed to response mediation via the "fast" visuomotor networks of the dorsal visual pathway. It is, however, unclear whether the executive demands of dissociating stimulus-response spatial relations by reaching mirror-symmetrical to a target (antipointing) elicits similar adherence to Fitts' equation. Here, pro- and antipointing responses were directed to a constant target amplitude with varying target widths to provide IDFitts values of 3.0, 3.5, 4.3, and 6.3 bits. Propointing movement times linearly increased with IDFitts-a result attributed to visually based trajectory corrections. In contrast, antipointing movement times, deceleration times, and endpoint precision did not adhere to Fitts' equation. These results indicate that antipointing renders a "slow" and offline mode of control mediated by the visuoperceptual networks of the ventral visual pathway.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.205 · 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