MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132947164

Motor imagery of joint action is shaped by assumed partner abilities and challenged by cognitive demands

2025· dissertation· W7132947164 on OpenAlexaff
Molly Brillinger

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2025
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)Motor imageryTask (project management)CognitionMovement (music)Joint (building)Mental imageDynamics (music)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motor imagery (MI) is a motor-cognitive process involving the mental rehearsal of movement without actual physical execution. When imagining joint actions, individuals must not only imagine their own movements but also integrate those with the imagined movements of a partner. Although previous research has shown that MI of joint action is possible, the field remains underexplored. The overarching purpose of this dissertation was to explore the social and cognitive dynamics of MI in joint action contexts. Specifically, this dissertation describes five experiments where participants performed and imagined performing a serial disc transfer task alone and with imagined partners of varying abilities. Imagined movement time (MT) was used to examine whether participants considered the assumed abilities of a partner when imagining performing the task, and to assess the cognitive demands involved in imagining the joint task. Five main conclusions were derived from this research: 1) individuals adjust their imagination of a partner’s movements based on the assumed motor abilities of the partner; 2) adjustments to an imagined partner’s movements influence the imagination of the imagers’ own movements; 3) most individuals are aware that their own imagined movements are affected by a partner’s perceived abilities, although these adjustments occur unintentionally; 4) individuals have difficulty controlling their own imagined movements, particularly when paired with a high-performing partner; and 5) imagining a serial joint action task is more cognitively demanding than imagining the same task performed alone. Overall, this research demonstrates that MI of a serial joint action task is cognitively demanding and can be adjusted to account for the assumed abilities of a partner, which in turn affects one’s ability to control their own imagined movements. These findings offer a novel contribution to the study of MI and joint action.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicSport Psychology and Performance→French-language works237,207→