MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W601098635 · doi:10.1123/mcj.14.2.255

The Use of Auditory Cues in Anticipatory Control of Grasping Forces

2010· article· en· W601098635 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMotor Control · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationControl (management)PsychologyComputer scienceCognitive psychologyCommunicationArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual and haptic integration has been examined extensively, however little is known about alternative premovement sensory information to help in the anticipatory control of prehension. This study explored the concept of using auditory cues as an alternative premovement cue. Individuals lifted champagne flutes filled with various levels of water; and one group was given a sound cue before lifting. Sounds provided a precue regarding fluid level and hence mass. Results showed that auditory cues were used to predict the "target force" required to lift the masses, as evidenced by scaling of grip rates as a function of mass in the auditory cue group only. It was hypothesized that individuals used the auditory cues to preprogram the grasping forces produced during the lifting movement.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it