MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996124320 · doi:10.1162/089892900562462

Grasping after a Delay Shifts Size-Scaling from Absolute to Relative Metrics

2000· article· en· W1996124320 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersVlaamse regering
KeywordsObject (grammar)GRASPVirtual imagePsychologyHaptic technologyComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We carried out three experiments designed to compare the effects of relative and absolute size on manual prehension and manual estimates of perceived size. In each experiment, right-handed subjects were presented with two different-sized 3-D objects in a virtual display and were instructed to pick up or estimate the size of one of them. In Experiment 1, subjects were requested to pick up the smaller one of two virtual objects under one condition and the larger one under the other condition. In fact, the target object was identical on all trials; it was simply paired with a smaller object on some trials and a larger object on others. To provide veridical haptic feedback, a real object was positioned beneath a mirror at the same location as the virtual target object. In Experiment 2, one of the virtual objects was marked with a red dot on its top surface. From trial to trial, the marked object was paired with a larger, smaller, or same-sized object. Subjects were instructed to always pick up the marked object on each trial. In both Experiment 1 and 2, half the subjects were tested in delayed grasping with a 5-sec delay between viewing the objects and initiating the grasp, and half in real-time grasping without a delay. Using the same display of virtual objects as in Experiment 2, subjects in Experiment 3 were requested to estimate the size of the marked object using their index finger and thumb (i.e., they showed us how big the object looked to them). After estimating the target object's size, they picked it up. All subjects gave their estimates either immediately or after a delay. Recording of hand movements revealed that when subjects in Experiments 1 and 2 picked up the target object in real time, their grip aperture in flight was not significantly affected whether the object was accompanied by a larger object or a smaller one. When subjects picked up the target object after a delay, however, their grip aperture in flight was larger when the target object was accompanied by a smaller object than when it was accompanied by a larger object. A similar size-contrast effect was also observed in Experiment 3 in which subjects gave manual estimates of the perceived size of the target object. This perceptual effect was observed both when the estimates were given immediately and when they were given after a 5-sec delay. These results suggest that normal (real-time) visuomotor control relies on absolute metrics, whereas delayed grasping utilizes the same relative metrics used by conscious perception.

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 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)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.247 · 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