Spatial Modulation of Tactile Temporal-Order Judgments
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report a series of three experiments designed to examine the effect of posture on tactile temporal processing. Observers reported which of two tactile stimuli, presented to the left and right index fingers (experiments 1-3; or thumb, experiment 3), was perceived first while adopting one of two postures--hands-close (adjacent, but not touching) or hands-far (1 m apart)--in the dark. Just-noticeable differences were significantly smaller in the hands-far posture across all three experiments. In the first two experiments we compared hand versus foot responses and found equivalent advantages for the hands-far posture. In the final experiment the stimuli were presented to either the same or different digit on each hand (index finger or thumb) and we found that only when the same digit on each hand was stimulated was there an advantage for the hands-far posture. The finding that temporal precision was better with greater distance contradicts predictions based on attention-switching models of temporal-order judgments, and also contrasts with results from similar experimental manipulations in other modalities (eg vision). These results provide support for a rapid and automatic process that transforms the representation of a tactile stimulus from a skin-centred reference frame to a more external (eg body-centred or allocentric) one.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 it