Trouble doing two differently timed actions at once: What is the problem?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is nearly impossible to concurrently initiate and execute two motor actions with independent timing. For example, it is difficult to tap one rhythm with the right hand while tapping a different rhythm with the left hand, even after these rhythms have been practiced individually. However, if this task is restructured so that it is represented internally as one action done by two hands rather than as two actions, one with each hand, these same rhythms can be produced easily. These findings, which indicate that motor action is limited to a single time base, are in marked contrast with the fact that it is easy to mechanically generate two independent rhythms simply by using mechanisms that are not linked to each other. After an in-depth review of the extensive research on this topic we propose a new theoretical interpretation. This attributes the difficulty to a fundamental constraint that prevents initiation of any motor action until after completion of programming the internal code that controls timing. The timing code is volatile in the sense that it must be generated immediately prior to the action to be controlled and then it must be implemented without delay. This constraint, which has been studied as it applies to single motor actions, can be extended to concurrent motor actions where it can account for the difficulty in doing two differently timed actions at once. Additional phenomena which may be attributed to this constraint are described in a concluding section. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".