Plasticity of the Association between Visual Space and Action Space in a Blind-Walking Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many experiments have shown that a brief visual preview provides sufficient information to complete certain kinds of movements (reaching, grasping, and walking) with high precision. This suggests that participants must possess a calibration between visual target location and the kinaesthetic, proprioceptive, and/or vestibular stimulation generated during movement towards the target. We investigated the properties of this calibration using a cue-conflict paradigm in which participants were trained with mismatched locomotor and visual input. After training, participants were presented with visual targets and were asked to either walk to them or locate them in a spatial updating task. Our results showed that the training was sufficient to produce significant, systematic miscalibrations of the association between visual space and action space. These findings suggest that the association between action space and visual space is modifiable by experience. This plasticity could be either due to modification of a simple, task-specific sensory motor association or it could reflect a change in the gain of a path integration signal or a reorganisation of the relationship between perceived space and action space. We suggest further experiments that might help to distinguish between these possibilities.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".