MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053298245 · doi:10.1080/00222890009601389

The Visuomotor System Resists the Horizontal-Vertical Illusion

2000· article· en· W2053298245 on OpenAlexafffund
Philip Servos, Heather Carnahan, Jason P. Fedwick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWilfrid Laurier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIllusionHorizontal and verticalPerceptionHorizontal line testStimulus (psychology)Optical illusionCommunicationPsychologyVisual perceptionComputer visionGeodesyCognitive psychologyMathematicsGeometryComputer scienceGeologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of the horizontal-vertical illusion on the visual and visuomotor systems was investigated. Participants (N = 8) viewed horizontal and vertical lines in an inverted-T stimulus and judged whether the two line segments were the same or different lengths. Participants also reached out and grasped either the vertical or the horizontal line segment of the stimulus. Perceptually, participants succumbed to the illusion; that is, they judged Ts of equal horizontal and vertical line lengths to be different and Ts of unequal line lengths to be the same. When reaching toward the same stimuli, however, the size of their grip aperture was scaled appropriately for the various line lengths. Thus, whereas the perceptual system succumbed to the illusion, the visuomotor system did not. Those results support a model proposed by M. A. Goodale and A. D. Milner (1992), who posited separate cortical pathways for visual perception and visually guided action.

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)0.003
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations34
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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