Target Selection for Reaching and Saccades Share a Similar Behavioral Reference Frame in the Macaque
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The selection of one of two visual stimuli as a target for a motor action may depend on external as well as internal variables. We examined whether the preference to select a leftward or rightward target depends on the action that is performed (eye or arm movement) and to what extent the choice is influenced by the target location. Two targets were presented at the same distance to the left and right of a fixation position and the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was adjusted until both targets were selected equally often. This balanced SOA time is then a quantitative measure of selection preference. In two macaque monkeys tested, we found the balanced SOA shifted to the left side for left-arm movements and to the right side for right-arm movements. Target selection strongly depended on the horizontal target location. By varying eye, head, and trunk position, we found this dependency embedded in a head-centered behavioral reference frame for saccade targets and, somewhat counter-intuitively, for reach targets as well. Target selection for reach movements was influenced by the eye position, while saccade target selection was unaffected by the arm position. These findings suggest that the neural processes underlying target selection for a reaching movement are to a large extent independent of the coordinate frame ultimately used to make the limb movement, but are instead closely linked to the coordinate frame used to plan a saccade to that target. This similarity may be indicative of a common spatial framework for hand-eye coordination.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".