MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015213909 · doi:10.1163/22134808-00002423

Response Demands and Blindfolding in the Crossed-Hands Deficit: An Exploration of Reference Frame Conflict

2013· article· en· W2015213909 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMultisensory Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsReference framePsychologyFrame of referenceFrame (networking)CommunicationCognitive psychologyEyes openComputer visionAudiologyComputer scienceNeuroscienceMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Performance on tactile temporal order judgments (TOJs) is impaired when the hands are crossed over the midline. The cause of this effect appears to be tied to the use of an external reference frame, most likely based on visual information. We measured the effect of degrading the external reference frame on the crossed-hand deficit through restriction of visual information across three experiments. Experiments 1 and 2 examined three visual conditions (eyes open-lights on, eyes open-lights off, and eyes closed-lights off) while manipulating response demands; no effect of visual condition was seen. In Experiment 3, response demands were altered to be maximally connected to the internal reference frame and only two visual conditions were tested: eyes open-lights on, eyes closed-lights off. Blindfolded participants had a reduced crossed-hands deficit. Results are discussed in terms of the time needed to recode stimuli from an internal to an external reference frame and the role of conflict between these two reference frames in causing this effect.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.557
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.031 · 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