The eye in hand: predicting others' behavior by integrating multiple sources of information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to predict the outcome of other beings' actions confers significant adaptive advantages. Experiments have assessed that human action observation can use multiple information sources, but it is currently unknown how they are integrated and how conflicts between them are resolved. To address this issue, we designed an action observation paradigm requiring the integration of multiple, potentially conflicting sources of evidence about the action target: the actor's gaze direction, hand preshape, and arm trajectory, and their availability and relative uncertainty in time. In two experiments, we analyzed participants' action prediction ability by using eye tracking and behavioral measures. The results show that the information provided by the actor's gaze affected participants' explicit predictions. However, results also show that gaze information was disregarded as soon as information on the actor's hand preshape was available, and this latter information source had widespread effects on participants' prediction ability. Furthermore, as the action unfolded in time, participants relied increasingly more on the arm movement source, showing sensitivity to its increasing informativeness. Therefore, the results suggest that the brain forms a robust estimate of the actor's motor intention by integrating multiple sources of information. However, when informative motor cues such as a preshaped hand with a given grip are available and might help in selecting action targets, people tend to capitalize on such motor cues, thus turning out to be more accurate and fast in inferring the object to be manipulated by the other's hand.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".