The Impact of Limited Motor Experience on Action Possibility in People with Spinal Muscle Atrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have found that individuals with limited motor capabilities due to acquired neurological injury (e.g., spinal cord injury and stroke) can make accurate action possibility judgements for neurologically healthy individuals. Previous studies have shown that people with limited motor capabilities may rely on previous motor experience (i.e., pre-injury) when making action possibility judgments for others. In the present study, we examined whether having severely limited previous motor experience from birth, as a consequence of spinal muscle atrophy (SMA), alters the action possibility judgments made for neurologically healthy individuals. Participants with SMA and Neurologically Healthy (NH) sex- and age-matched controls performed a perceptual-motor judgment task using the Fitts’s law paradigm (see Fitts, 1954). Participants observed apparent motion videos of reciprocal aiming movements with varying indices of difficulty (ID, see: Manson et al., 2014). For each movement, participants predicted the shortest movement time (MT) at which a neurologically healthy young adult could perform the task while maintaining accuracy. Between-group comparisons revealed that participants with SMA predicted significantly longer MTs compared to controls. Regression analyses revealed that predicted MTs of both NH and SMA participants exhibited a Fitts’s law relationship (i.e., the predicted MTs significantly increased as movement difficulty increased). A supplementary analysis on the SMA group revealed no differences in predicted MTs between the participants with some and no motor function as assessed by the SMA health index. Overall, these results provide evidence that participants with SMA who have limited or no motor experience may make more conservative action possibility judgments for others. Critically, our finding that the pattern of action possibility judgements (e.g., the slopes of the regression lines) were not different between SMA and NH groups provides evidence that limited previous motor experience may not completely impair action possibility judgements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".