Egocentric and Allocentric Visual Cues Influence the Specification of Movement Distance and Direction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors investigated whether visuomotor transformations that support the computation of movement distance (i.e., extent) and movement direction rely differentially on integration of egocentric and allocentric visual information. To accomplish that objective, the authors factorially arranged 17 participants' open-loop reaching movements from 2 movement-start locations with mediolateral (ML) and anteroposterior (AP) variants of the induced Roelofs effect (IRE). The 2 movement-start locations in combination with the 2 IRE configurations enabled the authors to examine the impact of illusory movement pertaining to distance (i.e., AP-IRE) and direction (i.e., ML-IRE) information. AP-IRE and ML-IRE configurations across the 2 movement-start locations reliably influenced reaching endpoints in a direction consistent with the perceptual effects of the illusion. These findings suggest that unitary visual information involving interactive egocentric and allocentric visual cues supports the specification of both movement distance and movement direction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".