MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002623120 · doi:10.1068/p5629

Online Control of Discrete Action following Visual Perturbation

2007· article· en· W2002623120 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

VenuePerception · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonocularMovement (music)Perturbation (astronomy)Movement controlVisual controlPrism adaptationComputer sciencePrismPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSimulationComputer visionControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceOpticsPhysicsControl (management)NeuroscienceAcousticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the spatial and temporal limitations of the visual corrective process in goal-directed aiming, as well as gender differences in online control. An initial experiment was conducted to test the utility of a monocular switch procedure as a method of rapidly introducing a visual perturbation. The results revealed minimal effect of the monocular switch on movement time and the endpoint error. Following this control experiment, prismatic displacement was introduced at the initiation of and during the movement. In the third experiment, the prism was presented prior to movement initiation, and then removed at the beginning of or during the movement. Movement trajectories were most influenced by the early presentation and removal of the prism, and female performance was significantly more affected by both perturbations than male performance.

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)0.000
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 score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.293 · 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