MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986566048 · doi:10.1167/10.11.17

Obstacle avoidance during online corrections

2010· article· en· W1986566048 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher S. Chapman, Melvyn A. Goodale

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsObstacleWorkspaceObstacle avoidanceComputer visionComputer scienceJumpArtificial intelligenceCollision avoidanceObject (grammar)Encoding (memory)PsychologyCommunicationCollisionRobotComputer securityGeographyMobile robot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dorsal visual stream codes information crucial to the planning and online control of target-directed reaching movements in dynamic and cluttered environments. Two specific dorsally mediated abilities are the avoidance of obstacles and the online correction for changes in target location. The current study was designed to test whether or not both of these abilities can be performed concurrently. Participants made reaches to touch a target that, on two-thirds of the trials, remained stationary and on the other third "jumped" at movement onset. Importantly, on target-jump trials, a single object (in one of four positions) sometimes became an obstacle that interfered with the reach. When a target jump caused an object to suddenly become an obstacle, we observed clear spatial avoidance behavior, an effect that was not present when the target jumped but the object did not become an obstacle. This automatic spatial avoidance was accompanied by significant velocity reductions only when the risk for collision with the obstacle was high, suggesting an "intelligent" encoding of potential obstacle locations. We believe that this provides strong evidence that the entire workspace is encoded during reach planning and that the representation of all objects in the workspace is available to the automatic online correction system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207