The effects of endogenous auditory cue-target congruency on upper limb rapid goal-directed reaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sutton, J.C., Aina, A.O., and Glazebrook, C.M. Previous research found that congruent exogenous auditory cues biased and enhanced goal-directed reaching in a multi-target task. The current study assessed if endogenous auditory cues, that require voluntary shifts in attention, can similarly be used to effectively capture attention when performing a multi-target reaching task. Eleven right-handed individuals (mean age 22.2 years; 5 males) with normal or corrected-to-normal vision and hearing, performed a rapid multi-target reaching task towards four 4cm square targets displayed on a touch screen (Dell ST2220T). Three endogenous auditory cues (no sound, valid and invalid) were randomized. An Optotrak 3D Investigator (NDI) was used to measure reach trajectories at 500Hz. Following a variable fore-period (300-850ms) the target array turned green, which was the visual signal for participants to begin moving. Upon movement initiation, an auditory cue (0Hz, 250Hz, or 1250Hz) was emitted and one of four equiprobable visual targets was identified. Participants were asked to quickly and accurately continue their reach to the identified target. Performance measures and movement trajectories were analysed using repeated measures ANOVAs (3 Cue X 4 Target and 3 Cue X 4 Target X 5 Movement Proportion, respectively). Reaction time was significantly shorter in the valid condition. Movement trajectory deviations between upper and lower targets became significant at 60% of movement time, regardless of the auditory cue. Thus, the present results do not support the same advantage of cue-target congruency for endogenous auditory cues that was observed previously for exogenous auditory cues.Acknowledgments: The Funding for this project was provided by 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 | 0.003 |
| 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".