Hemispheric Specialization for the Visual Control of Action Is Independent of Handedness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea that visually guided action is independent of visual perception has been supported by neurological, neuropsychological, and behavioral studies. In healthy subjects, evidence for this distinction has come from psychophysical studies of the effects of visual illusions on perceptual judgments and object-directed grasping. This evidence is limited, however, by the fact that virtually all studies have involved right-handed subjects using their dominant hand, which is presumably controlled by the left hemisphere. There is tentative evidence from earlier neurological studies that the left hemisphere may in fact play a special role in the integration of visual and motor information during grasping. We designed two experiments to test this idea. The first experiment involved pictorial illusions, which are known to have robust effects on perceptual judgments but little influence on grasping. Right- and left-handed subjects reached out and grasped objects embedded in two different visual illusions with either their dominant or their nondominant hand. For both right- and left-handed subjects, precision grasping with the left hand, but not with the right, was affected by the illusions. In a follow-up experiment, we examined precision grasping in a more natural setting and showed that left-handed subjects use their nondominant (right) hand significantly more as compared with right-handed subjects. We conclude that visuomotor mechanisms encapsulated in the left hemisphere play a crucial role in the visual control of action and that this hemispheric specialization evolved independently of handedness.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it