Spatial updating across saccades during manual interception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the effect of intervening saccades on the manual interception of a moving target. Previous studies suggest that stationary reach goals are coded and updated across saccades in gaze-centered coordinates, but whether this generalizes to interception is unknown. Subjects (n = 9) reached to manually intercept a moving target after it was rendered invisible. Subjects either fixated throughout the trial or made a saccade before reaching (both fixation points were in the range of -10° to 10°). Consistent with previous findings and our control experiment with stationary targets, the interception errors depended on the direction of the remembered moving goal relative to the new eye position, as if the target is coded and updated across the saccade in gaze-centered coordinates. However, our results were also more variable in that the interception errors for more than half of our subjects also depended on the goal direction relative to the initial gaze direction. This suggests that the feedforward transformations for interception differ from those for stationary targets. Our analyses show that the interception errors reflect a combination of biases in the (gaze-centered) representation of target motion and in the transformation of goal information into body-centered coordinates for action.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".