Information-theory analysis of mouse string-pulling agrees with Fitts’s Law: Increasing task difficulty engages multiple sensorimotor modalities in a dual oscillator behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mouse string pulling, in which a mouse reels in a string with hand-over-hand movements, can provide insights into skilled motor behavior, neurological status, and cognitive function. The task involves two oscillatory movements connected by the string. The snout tracks the pendulum movement of the string produced by hand-over-hand pulls and so guides the hands to grasp the string. The present study examines the allocation of time required to pull strings of varying diameter. Movement is also described with end-point measures, string-pulling topography with 2D markerless pose estimates based on transfer learning with deep neural networks, and Mat-lab image-segmentation and heuristic algorithms for object tracking. With reduced string diameter, mice took longer to pull 60cm long strings. They also made more pulling cycles, misses, and mouth engagements, and displayed changes in the amplitude and frequency of pull cycles. The time measures agree with Fitts’s law in showing that increased task difficulty slows behavior and engages multiple compensatory sensorimotor modalities. The analysis reveals that time is a valuable resource in skilled motor behavior and information-theory can serve as a measure of its effective use.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".