Head roll influences perceived hand position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual and proprioceptive sensory inputs are naturally coded in different reference frames, i.e., eye-centered and body-centered, respectively. To use these signals in conjunction for motor planning or perception ultimately requires converting them into a common frame of reference using estimates of the relative orientation of the eyes, head, and body. Here, we examine whether extraretinal signals-specifically head roll-alter multisensory perception through noisy reference frame transformations. To do so, we examine the accuracy of visual localization relative to proprioceptive hand position for different head roll orientations. Subjects were required to judge whether a visual target was located closer or further and left or right (4-alternative forced-choice task) from their unseen hand. This was done for three different head roll rotations (-30, 0, and 30 deg). We show that eccentric head roll increased the variability in the subjects' ability to discriminate target location relative to the fingertip. We conclude that sensory perception is sensitive to body-geometry-dependent noise affecting the coordinate matching transformations of sensory data.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".