Cue Reliability and a Landmark Stability Heuristic Determine Relative Weighting Between Egocentric and Allocentric Visual Information in Memory-Guided Reach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is not known how egocentric visual information (location of a target relative to the self) and allocentric visual information (location of a target relative to external landmarks) are integrated to form reach plans. Based on behavioral data from rodents and humans we hypothesized that the degree of stability in visual landmarks would influence the relative weighting. Furthermore, based on numerous cue-combination studies we hypothesized that the reach system would act like a maximum-likelihood estimator (MLE), where the reliability of both cues determines their relative weighting. To predict how these factors might interact we developed an MLE model that weighs egocentric and allocentric information based on their respective reliabilities, and also on an additional stability heuristic. We tested the predictions of this model in 10 human subjects by manipulating landmark stability and reliability (via variable amplitude vibration of the landmarks and variable amplitude gaze shifts) in three reach-to-touch tasks: an egocentric control (reaching without landmarks), an allocentric control (reaching relative to landmarks), and a cue-conflict task (involving a subtle landmark "shift" during the memory interval). Variability from all three experiments was used to derive parameters for the MLE model, which was then used to simulate egocentric-allocentric weighting in the cue-conflict experiment. As predicted by the model, landmark vibration--despite its lack of influence on pointing variability (and thus allocentric reliability) in the control experiment--had a strong influence on egocentric-allocentric weighting. A reduced model without the stability heuristic was unable to reproduce this effect. These results suggest heuristics for extrinsic cue stability are at least as important as reliability for determining cue weighting in memory-guided reaching.
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 | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".