MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111708200 · doi:10.1080/00222895.2020.1858746

Preferential Reaching and End-State Comfort: How Task Demands Influence Motor Planning

2020· article· en· W3111708200 on OpenAlex
Danielle Salters, Patricia Rios, Eliza Ramsay, Sara M. Scharoun Benson

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

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrientation (vector space)Task (project management)Motor planningDowelGRASPObject (grammar)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyCommunicationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various factors (e.g., hand preference, object properties) constrain reach-to-grasp in hemispace. With object use, end-state comfort (ESC) has been shown to supersede the preferential use of one hand at the midline. To assess how location, size, and orientation of objects (dowel, mallet, cup) influence preferred-hand use and ESC (N = 50; Mage = 20.83), three preferential reaching tasks were implemented. Object location influenced hand selection in all tasks, along with size (cups) and orientation (mallets). Object location and orientation influenced ESC, but only with dowels and mallets. When oriented away from the preferred hand in hemispace, there was a higher occurrence of non-preferred hand use to facilitate ESC. Overall, findings add to understanding of ESC and preferential reaching with varying task demands.

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)0.000
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 score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.222 · 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