Lets play it by ear: Auditory gating during goal-directed action?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At rest, the perception of brief flashes is biased by co-occurring brief beeps (i.e., audio-visual illusion: Shams et al. 2000; Andersen et al. 2004). However, during fast and accurate goal-directed movements, susceptibility to audio-induced visual illusions is lessened, specifically during the high velocity portions of the trajectory (Tremblay & Nguyen, 2010). One explanation for such findings is the sensory gating hypothesis (e.g., Chapman & Beauchamp, 2006), which is thought to primarily occur just before and early during a movement. Employing vision-induced auditory illusions, this study tested if the modulation of the audio-visual illusion could be explained by the gating of auditory information. Thirteen participants performed rapid and accurate upper-limb movements towards a visual target. At rest and during reaching movements, 0, 1 or 2 flashes were presented simultaneously with 1 or 2 beeps. During the movement trials, these audio-visual stimuli were presented at 0, 200, and 400 ms relative to movement onset. Participants were asked to report the number of beeps heard after each trial. An ANOVA contrasted the perceived number of beeps using a 4 presentation time (rest, 0, 200, 400 ms) by 3 flash (0, 1, 2) by 2 beep (1, 2) design. On average, participants perceived fewer beeps when 1 beep was presented in the 0 ms condition, compared to the other presentation times. Further, the average number of perceived beeps was influenced by the number of flashes presented in both the 0 ms and 200 ms conditions. These results suggest that auditory information processing is suppressed as one initiates an action, while the influence of action on visual information processing takes place over a longer period of time. We conclude that auditory gating alone is not sufficient to explain modulations in the perception of the audio-visual illusion during goal-directed action. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".