Effector-specific improvements in action prediction in left-handed individuals after short-term physical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has established the influence of short-term physical practice for enhancing action prediction in right-handed (RH) individuals. In addition to benefits of physical practice for these later assessed perceptual-cognitive skills, effector-specific interference has been shown through action-incongruent secondary tasks (motor interference tasks). Here we investigated this experience-driven facilitation of action predictions and effector-specific interference in left-handed (LH) novices, before and after practicing a dart throwing task. Participants watched either RH (n = 19) or LH (n = 24) videos of temporally occluded dart throws, across a control condition and three secondary-task conditions: tone-monitoring, RH or LH force monitoring. These conditions were completed before and after physical practice throwing with the LH. Significantly greater improvement in prediction accuracy was shown post-practice for the LH- versus RH-video group. Consistent with previous work, effector-specific interference was shown, exclusive to the LH-video group. Only when doing the LH force monitoring task did the LH-video group show secondary task interference in prediction accuracy. These data support the idea that short-term physical practice resulted in the development of an effector-specific motor representation. The results are also consistent with other work in RH individuals (showing RH motor interference) and hence rule out the interpretation that these effector specific effects are due to the disruption of more generalized motor processes, thought to be lateralized to the left-hemisphere of the brain.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".