Hand-related rather than goal-related source of gaze-dependent errors in memory-guided reaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanisms for visuospatial cognition are often inferred directly from errors in behavioral reports of remembered target direction. For example, gaze-centered target representations for reach were first inferred from reach overshoots of target location relative to gaze. Here, we report evidence for the hypothesis that these gaze-dependent reach errors stem predominantly from misestimates of hand rather than target position, as was assumed in all previous studies. Subjects showed typical gaze-dependent overshoots in complete darkness, but these errors were entirely suppressed by continuous visual feedback of the finger. This manipulation could not affect target representations, so the suppressed gaze-dependent errors must have come from misestimates of hand position, likely arising in a gaze-dependent transformation of hand position signals into visual coordinates. This finding has broad implications for any task involving localization of visual targets relative to unseen limbs, in both healthy individuals and patient populations, and shows that response-related transformations cannot be ignored when deducing the sources of gaze-related errors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".