Behaviour and Gaze Analyses During a Goal-Directed Locomotor Task
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of the current study were: (a) to determine whether perception-action coupling controlled behaviours when walking through moving doors and (b) to determine how vision contributed to this behaviour. Participants (N = 6) walked along a 7-m path toward two motor-driven doors, which moved at rates ranging between 20 and 40 cm/s. Each door was independently driven such that both moved at the same velocity (symmetrical) or at different velocities (asymmetrical). The results showed that in both door movement conditions the participants controlled their approach velocity by slowing down prior to crossing the doors. The decrease in walking velocity produced greater velocity variability in the final stages prior to crossing the doors and high success rates. The results from the gaze behaviours showed that fixation durations were significantly longer when the doors moved asymmetrically, suggesting that the visual information from this unpredictable environment took longer to process. However, the fixation patterns were similar between the two door movement conditions. Regardless of the door movement condition, the participants spent about 60% of each trial fixating environmental objects (i.e., left door, right door, or aperture). The majority of fixations were directed towards one of the doors at the beginning of the trial and then shifted towards the aperture in the final phase. The participants were using perception-action coupling to control their behaviours in the final phase in order to steer locomotion through the aperture.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it