MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078568083 · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.27.3.560

Dynamic illusion effects in a reaching task: Evidence for separate visual representations in the planning and control of reaching.

2001· article· en· W2078568083 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIllusionPerceptionOrientation (vector space)Context (archaeology)Cognitive psychologyTask (project management)Optical illusionPsychologyRepresentation (politics)Action (physics)MathematicsGeometryPhysicsEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of an orientation illusion on perception and 2 different actions were investigated. An 8-cm x 2-cm cylindrical bar was placed in front of participants at various orientations. A background grating was used to induce an orientation illusion. In a perception task, the illusion affected participants' ability to align the bar with their sagittal planes. In one reaching task, a similar effect of the illusion was found on the choice between 2 possible grasping postures. In a second reaching task involving a single grasping posture, the orientation illusion affected the orientation of the hand at the beginning of the reach but not near its end. The authors argue that reaching trajectories are planned and initiated through a context-dependent representation but are corrected on-line through a context-independent representation. The relation of this model to a more general dichotomy between perception and action is 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.358 · 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