Object-based processes in the planning of goal-directed hand movements
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
Theories in motor control suggest that the parameters specified during the planning of goal-directed hand movements to a visual target are defined in spatial parameters like direction and amplitude. Recent findings in the visual attention literature, however, argue widely for early object-based selection processes. The present experiments were designed to examine the contributions of object-based and space-based selection processes to the preparation time of goal-directed pointing movements. Therefore, a cue was presented at a specific location. The question addressed was whether the initiation of responses to uncued target stimuli could benefit from being either within the same object (object based) or presented at the same direction (space based). Experiment 1 replicated earlier findings of object-based benefits for non-goal-directed responses. Experiment 2 confirmed earlier findings of space-based benefits for goal-directed hand pointing movements. In Experiments 3 and 4, space-based and object-based manipulations were combined while requiring goal-directed hand pointing movements. The results clearly favour the notion that the selection processes for goal-directed pointing movements are primarily object based. Implications for theories on selective attention and action planning are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it