The Role of Awareness on Motor-Sensory Temporal Recalibration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal recalibration (TR) may arise to realign asynchronous stimuli after exposure to a short, constant delay between voluntary movement and sensory stimulus. The objective of this study was to determine if awareness of the temporal lag between a motor response (i.e., a keypress) and a sensory event (i.e., a visual flash) is necessary for TR to occur. We further investigated whether manipulating the required motor and perceptual judgment tasks modified the influence of awareness on TR. Participants ( n = 48) were randomly divided between two groups (Group 1: Aware and Group 2: Unaware). The Aware group was told of the temporal lag between their keypress and visual flash at the beginning of the experiment, whereas the Unaware group was not. All participants completed eight blocks of trials, in which the motor task (single or repetitive tap), perceptual judgment task (judging the temporal order of the keypress in relation to the visual flash or judging whether the two stimuli were simultaneous or not), and fixed temporal lag between keypress and visual flash (0 or 100 ms) varied. TR was determined by comparing judgments between corresponding blocks of trials in which the temporal lag was 0 or 100 ms. Results revealed that both the Aware and Unaware groups demonstrated a similar magnitude of TR across all motor and perceptual judgment tasks, such that the magnitude of TR did not vary between Aware and Unaware participants. These results suggest that awareness of a temporal lag does not influence the magnitude of TR achieved and that motor and perceptual judgment task demands do not modulate the influence of awareness on TR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".