Dissociation between visual perception and visually directed action in locomotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence has suggested that differences in performance exist when comparing tasks involving visually directed locomotion to those involving visual perception of space. Such evidence indicates that systematic errors apparent in visual space perception do not influence the motoric responding associated with such visual exposure. For instance, when subjects are required to verbally match distance intervals oriented in a frontal-parallel plane to those oriented in-depth when provided with static visual cues alone, a robust foreshortening effect is observed for in-depth estimates — an effect that disappears when responding via blindfolded locomotion. Our intention was to replicate this finding using a slightly different task and to examine additional conditions in which dynamic visual information and non-visual information are concurrently available. The current experiment was conducted in a large, open, outdoor environment. Subjects were required to view a target distance oriented in-depth and match that distance, first in an in-depth plane and subsequently in a frontal-parallel plane (forming a 90 deg angle). Responding occurred in one of three ways: 1) verbally positioning a target from the original viewing position using static visual information, 2) blindfolded locomotion, 3) locomotion with vision. Results demonstrated that visually perceived estimates varied as a function of orientation, with distance estimates produced in the frontal-parallel plane resulting in a substantially smaller extent than those oriented in-depth. Such a result is in agreement with other findings demonstrating a dissociation between perception and action in locomotion. For visually directed action, a strong effect of optic flow was also found. When subjects walked without vision, a consistent undershoot of the target distance was observed, whereas when subjects walked with vision, a consistent overshoot of the target distance was observed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".