The inter-trial spatial biases of stimuli and goals in saccadic programming
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
Prior studies have shown an ‘alternate antisaccade-goal bias’, in that the saccadic landing points of antisaccades were displaced towards the location of antisaccade goals used in other trials in the same experimental block. Thus the motor response in one trial induced a spatial bias of a motor response in another trial. In this study we investigated whether sensory information, i.e. the location of a visual stimulus, might have a spatial effect on a motor response too. Such an effect might be attractive as for the alternate antisaccade-goal bias or repulsive. For this purpose we used block of trials with either antisaccades, prosaccades or mixed trials in order to study the alternate-trial biases generated by antisaccade goals, antisaccade stimuli, and prosaccade goals. in contrast to the effects of alternate antisaccade goals described in prior studies, alternate antisaccade stimuli generated a significant repulsive bias of about 1.8°: furthermore, if stimulus and motor goal coincide, as with an alternate prosaccade, the repulsive effect of a stimulus prevails, causing a bias of about 0.9°. Taken together with prior results, these findings may reflect averaging of current and alternate trial activity in a salience map, with excitatory activity from the motor response and inhibitory activity from the sensory input..
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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