{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023048327137546468, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005947955390334572, 'mean_word_length': 5.31924882629108, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Visual Dominance in Amending the Directional Parameter of Feedforward Control

Abstract The authors examined visual dominance between trials in which the movement program was amended (i.e., off-line processing). Weighting between visual and proprioceptive feedback was examined in a trial-by-trial analysis of the directional parameter of feedforward control. Eight participants moved a cursor to a target displayed on a computer screen by manipulating a hand-held stylus on a digitizing tablet. In the first 30 trials, the cursor followed the stylus movement (practice condition). In the next 30 trials, the directional error of the stylus movement was presented in the opposite direction (reversal condition). Subjects knew the presence and the nature of the reversal. In the last 10 trials, the reversal was withdrawn (transfer condition). Directional error of feedforward control was relatively small in the practice condition, and it increased gradually in 1 of 2 directions as trials proceeded in the reversal condition. Positive aftereffect was observed in the transfer condition. A constant increment of the directional error indicated that both visual and proprioceptive feedback are registered, with higher weight on vision, and that weighting between those inputs is determined automatically or is fixed without any strategic control.