{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020017406440382943, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0008703220191470844, 'mean_word_length': 5.6473988439306355, '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}}
How does practice with a reversed mouse influence subsequent speeded aiming performance? A test of global inhibition

In a speeded aiming task, participants were trained to move a cursor with a mouse from a start position to target locations when the mouse–cursor relationships were either normal or reversed (vertically, horizontally, or both vertically and horizontally). Testing, which occurred after a 5-min delay, involved either the same or a different reversal condition. Response times improved across training, but no transfer occurred when reversal conditions were changed between training and testing. Specificity of training effects extended even to performance with the highly familiar normal mouse. Normal mouse use was slowed by a factor of two to three with training on a reversed mouse although the effect was transient in that case. To contend with a reversed mouse, participants apparently adopt a global inhibition strategy, suppressing all normal movements (and replacing them with sensorimotor remapped movements) but disinhibiting movements along any nonreversed dimension (selectively disengaging the sensorimotor remapping).