Managing Gaze Competition when Acting On and Monitoring the Environment in Parallel
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Research on visually guided object manipulation has shown that participants fixate goal locations-such as objects to be grasped and locations where they are placed-prior to hand arrival, with gaze serving two primary functions: directing the hand (or object in hand) to the vicinity of the goal using peripheral vision and gaze related signals, and guiding the hand using central vision as it approaches the goal. However, in real world scenarios, manipulation tasks are often performed while concurrent monitoring of the environment, resulting in competition for gaze. Here we examined gaze-hand coordination under such conditions. Participants performed a manipulation task, that involved grasping balls and placing them at target locations, while concurrently monitoring a display to detect probabilistically occurring visual events, which required central vision. Participants managed gaze competition in two main ways. First, fixations allocated to the action task were brief and prioritized directing the hand towards the goal (object or target location); participants then relied on tactile feedback to complete the action (grasping or placing the object). When tactile feedback was reduced-by using a tool instead of the fingertips to perform the task-gaze additionally served the guiding function. Second, participant reduced gaze competition by exploiting temporal regularities of events in the monitoring task. Specifically, they adjusted both gaze allocation and hand movement timing to reduce the likelihood that action task fixations would coincide with visual events. These findings demonstrate how individuals flexibly integrate sensorimotor control with analysis of environmental statistics to manage competing visual demands. Significance Statement In everyday behaviour, we often perform manual tasks while simultaneously monitoring the environment, creating competition for gaze. How the brain resolves this competition remains poorly understood. Using a novel paradigm combining an object manipulation task with visual event monitoring, we show that participants integrate knowledge of sensorimotor demands and temporal regularities in the monitoring task to manage gaze. Specifically, we found that participants preferentially allocated gaze to the action task when it is most critical for sensorimotor control and when the likelihood of a visual event was low. Additionally, participants adjusted their hand movement timing based on event statistics to reduce gaze competition. These findings reveal how the brain dynamically allocates gaze resources across competing sensorimotor and visual task demands.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».