Speed-accuracy trade-offs in action perception, motor imagery, and execution of hand movements in autistic and non-autistic adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Action perception, execution, and imagery share motor-cognitive processes. Given prevalent sensory and motor coordination difficulties in autism, the processes of action perception and imagery may also be altered. This study investigated whether autistic adults can engage in motor imagery by testing potential differences in executing, perceiving, and imagining hand movements between autistic and non-autistic adults. Twenty autistic individuals and twenty age- and IQ-matched controls completed execution, imagination, and perception tasks using a Fitts' Law paradigm in an online session. For the execution and imagination tasks, participants performed or imagined making aiming movements between two targets. For the action perception task, participants indicated whether they could perform as accurately as the movements in presented videos. Target size and distance were manipulated into three difficulty levels and systematically varied across all tasks. Results showed Fitts' Law relationships for all tasks for both groups, with significant positive correlations between movement times and difficulty level. Movement times were longest in the imagination task and shortest in the perception task for both groups. These findings suggest motor imagery processes are relatively intact in autistic adults, highlighting that further investigation of motor imagery as a therapy for motor coordination difficulties in autistic individuals is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".