The effect of gaze shifts, pointing, and saccadic adaptation on the relative position judgments of a remembered object
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Henriques et al. (1998) showed that people re-map the location of an object with respect to gaze when pointing to its remembered location. In this study, we wanted to see if people's representation of the relative location of a remembered object also re-maps with respect to gaze. We also investigated the effect of pointing and saccadic adaption on relative location judgments following a gaze shift. METHOD: Head-fixed subjects in a dark room indicated the location of a previously displayed object (a vertical bar) relative to a second bar. This was done with gaze fixed 5°–15° horizontally from the first bar, or after the first bar was foveated followed by a 5°–15° horizontal gaze shift. In the pointing conditions, subjects pointed to the first bar following the gaze shift, and then judged its remembered location relative to a second bar. In the saccadic adaption condition, following a training session subjects performed saccades that were approximately 25% hypometric. RESULTS: When gaze was fixed, people judged the remembered bar as being closer to the fovea. When subjects shift their gaze after viewing the first bar, however, there was no such bias, i.e., they were accurate. Pointing affected the relative position judgment in the gaze-shifted condition by introducing a similar bias to the fovea. Saccadic adaptation did not significantly alter localization, but there was a trend in the direction of adaptation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the brain does not update with respect to gaze for perceptual judgments following an eye movement. Likewise, saccadic adaptation does not significantly affect perceptual localization. However, pointing did affect perceptual localization following an eye movement, suggesting that perception of the object's relative location may have been re-mapped when accompanied by a simultaneous action.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".