Stable body-centered coding of touch on the back
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Head position affects touch localization on the torso in different directions depending whether the head returns to centre or remains eccentric during testing. These observations have been taken to suggest that touch is coded in either gaze-centered or body-centered reference frames depending on the task (Pritchett et al., 2012). Here we tested localization of tactile stimuli applied to the back using the same paradigms to indicate gaze-centered or body-centered coding. Tactile stimulation was applied using a horizontal array of eight tactors mounted on a belt, centred on the backbone. Participants reported the perceived location of touches on a visual scale presented on a screen. The head was held eccentrically during the stimulation and either returned to centre or remained eccentric during response. When the head was returned to centre, as for the touches on the front of the torso, perceived touch locations on the back were shifted in the head’s direction, with largest effects on the side to which the head was turned. When the head remained eccentric, perceived touch location was unaffected by head position. Returning the head to centre evokes a gaze-centred strategy with errors related to errors in coding gaze. Leaving the head eccentric is associated with a body-centred coding strategy. The lack of errors on the back, compared to on the front of the torso under this condition may indicate a body-centred representation of the back that is more stable than the front — perhaps related to the availability of the backbone as a prominent body landmark.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".