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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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