MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156435951 · doi:10.3200/jmbr.40.2.155-164

Structured Perceptual Arrays and the Modulation of Fitts's Law: Examining Saccadic Eye Movements

2008· article· en· W2156435951 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSaccadic maskingFitts's lawEye movementPsychologyModulation (music)PerceptionMovement (music)CommunicationCognitive psychologyNeurosciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the basis of recent observations of a modulation of Fitts's law for manual pointing movements in structured visual arrays (J. J. Adam, R. Mol, J. Pratt, & M. H. Fischer, 2006; J. Pratt, J. J. Adam, & M. H. Fischer, 2007), the authors examined whether a similar modulation occurs for saccadic eye movements. Healthy participants (N = 19) made horizontal saccades to targets that appeared randomly in 1 of 4 positions, either on an empty background or within 1 of 4 placeholder boxes. Whereas in previous studies, placeholders caused a decrease in movement time (MT) without the normal decrease in movement accuracy predicted by Fitts's law, placeholders in the present experiment increased saccadic accuracy (decreased endpoint variability) without an increase in MT. The present results extend the findings of J. J. Adam et al. of a modulation of Fitts's law from the temporal domain to the spatial domain and from manual movements to eye movements.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.233 · 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