Spatial Updating Depends on Gaze Direction Even after Loss of Vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Direction of gaze (eye angle + head angle) has been shown to be important for representing space for action, implying a crucial role of vision for spatial updating. However, blind people have no access to vision yet are able to perform goal-directed actions successfully. Here, we investigated the role of visual experience for localizing and updating targets as a function of intervening gaze shifts in humans. People who differed in visual experience (late blind, congenitally blind, or sighted) were briefly presented with a proprioceptive reach target while facing it. Before they reached to the target's remembered location, they turned their head toward an eccentric direction that also induced corresponding eye movements in sighted and late blind individuals. We found that reaching errors varied systematically as a function of shift in gaze direction only in participants with early visual experience (sighted and late blind). In the late blind, this effect was solely present in people with moveable eyes but not in people with at least one glass eye. Our results suggest that the effect of gaze shifts on spatial updating develops on the basis of visual experience early in life and remains even after loss of vision as long as feedback from the eyes and head is available.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".