Large Reaching Datasets Quantify the Impact of Age, Sex/Gender, and Experience on Motor Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As we age, our movements become slower and less precise—but the extent of this decline remains unclear. To address this, we harmonized data from 2,185 participants across four published studies using a standard center-out reaching task. We found that older age was associated with a steady decline in reaction time (– 1.2 ms/year), movement time (–2.3 ms/year), and movement precision (–0.02º/year). Although the rate of decline did not differ by sex/gender, females consistently reacted more slowly (–8 ms), moved more slowly (–37 ms), and exhibited greater precision (+0.5º) across the adult lifespan. Notably, sex/gender differences attenuated after accounting for experiential factors such as video game use and the amount of sleep per day, whereas age remained a robust and consistent predictor of motor decline. Together, these findings provide a large-scale quantification of age, sex/gender, and experiential effects on motor control, offering a normative benchmark to inform future clinical interventions aimed at preserving motor function across the lifespan.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".