Object-based processes in the planning of goal-directed hand movements
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".