In Manually-Assisted Search, Perception Supervises Rather Than Directs Action
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
During manually-assisted search, where participants must actively manipulate search items, it has been reported that participants will often select and move the target of search itself without recognizing it (Solman et al., 2012a). In two experiments we explore the hypothesis that this error results from a naturally-arising strategy that decouples perception and action during search, enabling motor interactions with items to outpace the speed of perceptual analysis. In Experiment 1, we report that the error is prevalent for both mouse and touch-screen interaction modes, and is uninfluenced by speeding or slowing instructions--ruling out these task-specific details as causes of the error. In Experiment 2 we manipulate motor speed, and show that reducing the speed of individual movements during search leads to a reduction in error rates. These findings support the conclusion that the error results from incoordination between motor and perceptual processes, with motor processes outpacing perceptual abilities.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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