Spider-phobia influences conscious, but not unconscious, control of visually guided action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fear of a stimulus can distort perception of its appearance (e.g., spiders: Rachman & Cuk, 1992; heights: Stefanucci & Proffitt, 2008). These studies have not distinguished between conscious perception versus the control of visually guided action (Milner & Goodale, 1995). In this study we tested spider-phobic (n=15) and non-phobic (n=20) participants in a visually guided pointing task that measured both conscious and unconscious aspects of visual-motor control. Participants made speeded pointing actions on a touch-screen to images depicting either negative or positive emotional content (spiders vs. pets). The pointing task was performed with visual attention either focused on the image (single task) or divided because participants were also identifying letters (dual task). This dual task disrupts the conscious planning of actions (as measured by action initiation time) but not their online control (as measured in movement time, pointing accuracy, and response to target displacement during the action) (Liu, Chua, & Enns, 2008). Pointing was controlled differently by spider-phobic than non-phobic participants. In the dual task, they showed greater interference for letter identification and slower pointing movement. In the single task, they showed less accuracy and greater sensitivity to image content, specifically avoiding the negative images when pointing. Yet, when attention was divided between images and letters in the dual task, measures of unconscious motor control showed no differences related to phobia; pointing speed, accuracy, and sensitivity to target displacement were unaffected by phobia or image content. These findings support the hypothesis that spider-phobia exerts its influence on the conscious, but not unconscious, control of visually guided action. They imply that the automatic pilot of the dorsal stream (Pisella et al., 2000), which is guided by the location of the images, is not influenced by their emotional content.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".