Visuospatial updating of reaching targets in near and far space
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 brain constructs multiple representations of near and far space but it is unclear which spatial mechanism guides reaching across eye movements in near space. Retinocentric reaching representations are known to exist in parietal cortex, but must be updated during eye movements, in order to remain accurate. In contrast, non-retinal (e.g. muscle-centered) reaching plans in motor cortex do not require updating, and so may provide a more stable encoding mechanism. To test between these, we employed a behavioral test. Subjects briefly foveated a target (located at various depths in near and far space) looked peripherally, then reached toward its remembered location. Surprisingly, subjects did not use the stable non-retinal reaching plan (compared to controls without eye movements). Instead, the intervening eye movements induced a systematic pattern of reaching errors for targets at all depths consistent with updating in a retinal frame. We conclude that a common eye-centered updating mechanism prevails in programming arm movements in both near and far space.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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