It's all a matter of mass: Both the eye and hand know it
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent findings suggest that oculomotor action can - partially - modulate perceptual bias in manual responses (e.g., Binsted et al 1999a: Exp Brain Res); others however posit the manual and saccadic systems operate independently (e.g., Thompson & Westwood 2007: Neurosci Letters). Common to these and other eye-hand derived accounts of perception-action dichotomies in vision is the reliance on Müller-Lyer (ML) figures: a stimulus that coincidentally generates an asymmetric center of mass (CoM). However, CoM has been shown to attract attention within a visual scene (Zhou et al 2006: Neuroreport), such attentional bias can both generate and reverse illusory effects (Coren & Porac 1983: Perception). The purpose of this study was to examine the degree to which CoM, can bias ocular and manual movements, independently and in the absence of illusory percept. Participants (n=27) were asked to point, saccade, or make a ‘normal eye-hand response’ to a visual target. Targets consisted of a central lobe with a directional tail roughly corresponding to the letters p, q, d, b; center of mass was moved to each quadrant of the target. Participants were asked to point as ‘quickly and accurately as possible’ to the center of the central ‘lobe’ of the target. Vision of the target and hand was available throughout all pointing trials. In all conditions (i.e. saccade; point; eye-hand coordinated), responses were consistently biased throughout the response trajectory consistent with the CoM shift. Thus, despite the mixed observations of ML effects on manual and ocular movements (Bruno et al, 2007; Neur Biobeh Rev; Binsted & Elliott 1999b; Hum Mov Sci), ML findings may simply reflect presence/absence of biases due to CoM and not bare any direct contribution to extant debates regarding the discrete nature of perceptual and motor visual processes.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".