Influence of operator orientation on relative organizational mapping and spatial compatibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following up on a study by Worringham and Beringer (1989) that examined the influence of operator orientation on visual-motor performance, Experiment 1 employed a choice reaction time paradigm in which participants had to make rapid, discrete movements with a lever in response to a discrete stimulus. In Experiment 2, participants had to synchronize rhythmic movements with an oscillating visual display. Operator orientation with respect to stimulus display and response array locations was varied to examine the influence of global spatial relations. Display orientation was varied to examine the influence of spatial configuration. Mapping rules were varied to examine the effects of spatial mapping. In Experiment 1, the spatial mapping that yielded faster responses was dependent upon the stimulus display-response array configuration and the global relation. Under a parallel configuration, participants appeared to code the spatial aspects of the stimulus display and response in a manner that was unaffected by the global spatial relation. Under an orthogonal configuration, spatial mapping effects were dependent upon the global relation. In Experiment 2, the global spatial relation did not have an impact on the uniformity of co-ordination under different configuration or mapping conditions. Spatial configuration influenced whether or not differences between spatial mapping rules emerged. Together, the results speak to the relative nature of stimulus-response coding that underlie compatibility phenomena. In addition, the results have potential importance for the design of human-machine systems that allow flexibility in operator orientation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".