MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2073817029 · doi:10.1167/13.9.344

Eye-hand coordination: Differential effects of object shape and surface properties on fixation and grasp locations

2013· article· en· W2073817029 on OpenAlexaff
L. Desanghere, Jonathan J. Marotta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGRASPFixation (population genetics)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceObject (grammar)Computer scienceMathematicsGeometryCommunicationPsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has highlighted the importance of object shape and center of mass (COM) position in grasp location selection. For example, during a stable grasp, a subject’s "grasp line" will fall close to or across an object’s COM, with grasp locations shifting as a function of small COM changes. However, this research has typically utilized objects where the COM and the horizontal centre are very close in proximity, and has also ignored the characterization of fixation locations. In Experiment 1, we explored fixation and grasp location sensitivity to COM changes across object shape. The COM of objects was dissociated from the object’s horizontal centre at three different distances (0.5cm, 1cm and 1.5cm). Results showed that orientation of COM was the largest influence on grasp locations, with no differences in grasp positions as a function of COM distance. Fixation locations were found to be more sensitive to changes in COM. Fixations to objects with COM distances of 1cm and 1.5cm were significantly further away from fixation locations to objects with the COM closest to the object’s horizontal center (0.5cm). In Experiment 2, we kept the shape of the objects constant but varied the visual characteristics of the objects with gradients of luminosity (greyscale), numerosity (more to less stars), or area coloured (1/2, 1/3[sup]rd[/sup], or 1/6[sup]th[/sup] of the object). Results showed a significant influence of the surface properties on grasp locations but not fixation positions. A rightward grasp bias was observed when grasping the greyscale and star objects. On the other hand, objects with 1/3[sup]rd[/sup] and 1/6[sup]th [/sup]of the surface area covered, biased grasp positions away from the coloured areas. Results from the current studies demonstrate how changes in object shape or changes in the local elements within a shape can differentially affect fixation and grasp locations when picking up an object. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013

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)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicMotor Control and Adaptation→French-language works237,207→