Perspective Modulates Temporal Synchrony Discrimination of Visual and Proprioceptive Information in Self-Generated Movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporally congruent sensory information during a movement and the visual perspective in which we see our movement provide cues for self-recognition. Here we measured threshold and sensitivity for delay detection between a self-generated finger movement (proprioceptive and efferent copy) and the visual image of that movement under differing perspectives. Asynchrony was detected more easily (45–60 ms) when the hand was viewed in an egocentric perspective, even if its image was mirrored so that it appeared to be the other hand. Significantly longer delays (80–100ms) were needed to detect asynchrony when the hand was viewed in an allocentric (or inverted) perspective. These effects were replicated when the movement was seen as if looking in a mirror and when the non-dominant hand was used. We conclude that the tolerance for temporally matching visual, proprioceptive and efferent copy information that informs about the perceived position of body parts depends on whether one is viewing one's own body or someone else's.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".