MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129116091 · doi:10.1037/1076-898x.9.4.228

Watching a Cursor Distorts Haptically Guided Reproduction of Mouse Movement.

2003· article· en· W2129116091 on OpenAlexaff
Roberta L. Klatzky, Susan J. Lederman, Sara Langseth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Applied · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCursor (databases)Cued speechSensory cueHaptic technologyComputer scienceVisual feedbackKinesthetic learningComputer visionPsychologyCommunicationArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Participants moved a mouse along a force-feedback-defined linear path, either without vision or while watching a cursor set to 1 of 3 levels of visual:haptic gain (all >1:1). They attempted to haptically reproduce the movement without visual feedback. Errors increased with gain, reaching 70% overestimation at the highest gain. Forewarning participants about gain variability did not eliminate this effect. The gain level was potentially cued during the movement by the mismatch between visual feedback and kinesthetic feedback. Moreover, because participants did not achieve cursor-speed constancy across gain levels, visual speed was another cue to gain. Collectively, these cues failed to prevent visual distortion of movement reproduction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology AppliedSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207