MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081598100 · doi:10.3200/jmbr.37.3.179-185

Time Course Analysis of Closed- and Open-Loop Grasping of the Müller-Lyer Illusion

2005· article· en· W2081598100 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 Motor Behavior · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIllusionUnitary statePerceptionPsychologyOptical illusionClosed loopCognitive psychologyCommunicationAudiologyComputer visionComputer scienceNeuroscienceMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors investigated whether the early or later stages of closed-loop (CL) and open-loop (OL) grasping movements were differentially influenced by the Müller-Lyer (ML) illusion. Participants (N = 21) reached out and grasped small (5 cm) and large (7 cm) objects embedded within fins-in and fins-out ML configurations. Grasping time (GT) was normalized, and absolute grip aperture (GA) as well as scaled illusion effects were computed at 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% of GT. The results indicated that CL trials were refractory to the illusory array (i.e., from 20% to 80% of GT), whereas OL trials were influenced by the ML figure during that same time. Those findings suggest that CL trials were supported by unitary and metrical visual information, whereas OL trials were entirely supported by perception-based visual information.

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)0.000
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 score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.266 · 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