Head Displacement Shifts the Perceived Location of Touches in opposite Directions Depending on the Task
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
The perceived location of a touch shifts with eye or head position, suggesting touch is coded in a visual reference frame. Our lab has previously reported shifts in the direction of eccentricity, but Ho and Spence (2007, Brain Res. 1144: 136) reported head-related shifts in the opposite direction. These studies differed by body part touched (arm vs. torso), the nature of the touch (tap vs. vibration) and whether perceived touch location was recorded with head centered or eccentric. We performed a series of experiments applying vibration to the torso and measuring perceived location using a visual scale. We replicated Ho and Spence using trials blocked by head position and recording perceived position with the head displaced. A second experiment used randomized head displacements with the head centered before responding. In a control experiment head was centered during the touch and eccentric for response. Perceived touch location shifted in the direction opposite to head position under the blocked design, in the same direction as head position in the randomized design and not at all in the control. Results are discussed in terms of allocentric and egocentric coding mechanisms needed to complete each condition.
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) | 0.002 | 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 it