Visual-motor experience and motor imagery in hand gestures
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our goal is to determine how the type of sensori-motor practice experience (i.e., physical and visual experience) influence the ability to perform motor imagery (the mental rehearsal of a motor task). There are differences in an individual’s ability to use visual imagery (imagining how a movement looks) and kinesthetic imagery (imagining how a movement feels), that we predict are dependent on the type of experience an individual has with the skills they are imagining. In this experiment, we measure motor imagery ability by comparing actual and imagined movement times and subjective ratings of motor imagery quality and ease of generation. We will test motor imagery ability before, during and after different types of practice experiences. Participants will be randomized into three groups and imagine performing two hand gesture sequences. These sequences will comprise 4 and 6 gestures from the American Sign Language alphabet. They will imagine these sequences before and after either 1) physical practice, 2) observational practice, or 3) no-practice (i.e., control group), according to group assignment. The physical and observational practice groups will practice in pairs, with one participant physically practicing without visual feedback (hand occluded) and the other practicing by observation only. A control group will not practice. All assessments of motor imagery ability will be completed individually. Group differences in task-specific motor imagery measures following practice will allow us to infer how different types of practice impact motor imagery ability. We will take measures of both visual (how the movement looks) and kinesthetic (how the movement feels) motor imagery. Our primary measures will be time to complete the motor imagery of each sequence in comparison to how long it takes to physically complete the sequence , so termed mental chronometry. Imagined and actual movement times are defined as the time from (imagined) movement onset to the end of the (imagined) movement, both signaled by the press of the spacebar on a keyboard by the participant. We will also ask for subjective ratings of motor imagery ability for the sequences and test performance on both hands (i.e., trained and non-trained hands).
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 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 it