Reframing the action and perception dissociation in DF: haptics matters, but how?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goodale and Milner's (1992) "vision-for-action" and "vision-for-perception" account of the division of labor between the dorsal and ventral "streams" has come to dominate contemporary views of the functional roles of these two pathways. Nevertheless, some lines of evidence for the model remain controversial. Recently, Thomas Schenk reexamined visual form agnosic patient DF's spared anticipatory grip scaling to object size, one of the principal empirical pillars of the model. Based on this new evidence, Schenk rejects the original interpretation of DF's spared ability that was based on segregated processing of object size and argues that DF's spared grip scaling relies on haptic feedback to calibrate visual egocentric cues that relate the posture of the hand to the visible edges of the goal-object. However, a careful consideration of the tasks that Schenk employed reveals some problems with his claim. We suspect that the core issues of this controversy will require a closer examination of the role that cognition plays in the operation of the dorsal and ventral streams in healthy controls and in patient DF.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".