No Evidence for Accurate Visuomotor Memory: Systematic and Variable Error in Memory-Guided Reaching
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 authors explored whether the motor system has access to highly accurate information about the aiming environment after visual occlusion. Participants (N = 14) reached to 1 of 3 midsagittal targets in 4 visual conditions (open-loop, brief-delay, 500-ms delay, and 2,000-ms delay). In all conditions, the aiming environment was first viewed for 2,000 ms. Movements were cued immediately after the initial viewing period in the open-loop and brief-delay conditions. Vision was not occluded until movement onset in the open-loop condition, whereas vision was occluded coincidentally with the movement cue in the brief-delay condition. In the 2 longer delay conditions, the movement was cued following a 500- or a 2,000-ms no-vision delay period. Participants overshot the target in the open-loop condition, but that tendency was significantly reduced in the 3 delay conditions. Moreover, endpoint variability was greater in the 3 delay conditions than in the open-loop condition. A speed-accuracy tradeoff account could not explain the differences between open-loop and delayed reaching. Those findings suggest that the motor system does not have access to highly accurate information about the aiming environment for any appreciable period of time following visual occlusion, consistent with the view that the visuomotor system operates in real time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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