Gaze Behavior When Reaching to Remembered Targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People naturally direct their gaze to visible hand movement goals. Doing so improves reach accuracy through use of signals related to gaze position and visual feedback of the hand. Here, we studied where people naturally look when acting on remembered target locations. Four targets were presented on a screen, in peripheral vision, while participants fixed a central cross (encoding phase). Four seconds later, participants used a pen to mark the remembered locations while free to look wherever they wished (recall phase). Visual references, including the screen and the cross, were present throughout. During recall, participants neither looked at the marked locations nor prevented eye movements. Instead, gaze behavior was erratic and was comprised of gaze shifts loosely coupled in time and space with hand movements. To examine whether eye and hand movements during encoding affected gaze behavior during recall, in additional encoding conditions, participants marked the visible targets with either free gaze or with central cross fixation or just looked at the targets. All encoding conditions yielded similar erratic gaze behavior during recall. Furthermore, encoding mode did not influence recall performance, suggesting that participants, during recall, did not exploit sensorimotor memories related to hand and gaze movements during encoding. Finally, we recorded a similar lose coupling between hand and eye movements during an object manipulation task performed in darkness after participants had viewed the task environment. We conclude that acting on remembered versus visible targets can engage fundamentally different control strategies, with gaze largely decoupled from movement goals during memory-guided actions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".