MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052663564 · doi:10.1167/12.9.423

Online visual feedback of the hand suppresses gaze-dependent overshoots in memory-guided reach

2012· article· en· W2052663564 on OpenAlexaff
Joost C. Dessing, Masahiro Kokubu, Armin Abadeh, Patrick Byrne, J. Douglas Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGazeSaccadeOvershoot (microwave communication)Eccentricity (behavior)Fixation (population genetics)ProprioceptionComputer visionArtificial intelligenceEye movementVisual feedbackComputer sciencePsychologyCommunicationPhysicsNeuroscienceMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reaching movements in the dark overshoot memorized visual targets relative to the gaze direction held just before reach onset, even if a saccade intervenes between target presentation and reach onset. The latter pattern has been cited as evidence for the updating of memorized visual target positions in a gaze-centered reference frame. However, the exact origin of the gaze-dependent overshoot is not known. Because the reach errors depend on the visual target eccentricity, all previous studies (e.g., Henriques et al. 1998; McGuire & Sabes 2009) have assumed that it reflects biases in target‑related inputs to the visuomotor transformation. An alternative possibility, as of yet untested, is that the error is associated with biases in hand-related signals. Here, we tested this hypothesis through its prediction that visual feedback of the hand during the reaching movement should greatly reduce or even abolish the gaze-dependent overshoot. Six subjects sat in the dark in front of a screen behind which target and fixation LEDs were mounted 10 deg. of visual angle apart, while their eye and finger movements were recorded using EyeLink II and Optotrak, respectively. All subjects showed the typical gaze-dependent overshoot reported before (~±2 deg. at ±10 deg. retinal target eccentricity; P<0.005). The overshoot disappeared when they could see their finger during the reach (~±0.2 deg. at ±10 deg. retinal target eccentricity; P>0.37). This effect was most parsimoniously explained by a reach planning model that included biases in the transformation of proprioceptive signals into visual coordinates, for the purpose of calculating a reach vector in visual coordinates (further predictions of this model are currently under investigation). This is the first demonstration that overshoots to remembered visual targets can be suppressed entirely in healthy human subjects. This finding is consistent with our hypothesis that the overshoot arises within hand-related inputs into the visuomotor transformation. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207