Extra-personal gaze influences on the eye to hand spatial interference effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Richardson and colleagues (2013) demonstrated occulo-manual spatial interference by finding that the finger trajectory in a vertical tapping task deviated toward the direction of a concurrent saccade. It was proposed that this was due to generalized motor planning strategy resulting in entrainment of the hand to the eyes. Human action observation research has shown that cortical motor planning structures are also recruited in action observation (e.g. Buccino et al. 2001; Decety et al. 1997), which can result in spatial interference (Kilner et al. 2003). We hypothesized that because motor planning structures are recruited in both observation and execution of action, simply observing the horizontal saccades of another person would cause sufficient recruitment of occulo-motor planning structures, that would result in finger tap trajectory deviations toward the direction of the observed saccade (but would not do so in a non-biological observation control condition). 19 participants performed 24 trials of vertical finger taps under three different visual conditions. They were required to: a) saccade horizontally between targets; b) fixate on a biological stimulus (i.e. a video of horizontally saccading human eyes); or c) fixate on a non-biological control stimulus (horizontally moving black dots) while tapping their finger to an auditory metronome beat presented at a 750ms intervals. Results from the saccading condition replicate Richardson et al’s (2013) entrainment effect. That is, finger taps deviated to the left when participants saccaded left, and to the right when executed with a rightward saccade. Contrary to expectations however, there was no entrainment induced by observing either the biological stimulus or the control stimulus. This suggests that competing motor plans (eyes and hands) are necessary to induce interference. Further, simply observing eye movements do not recruit the same occulo-motor planning networks as action execution. Acknowledgments: Funding Acknowledgements: NSERC
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.146 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".