Mine in motion: How physical actions impact the psychological sense of object ownership.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our attention and memory can be biased toward objects having high self-relevance, such as things we own. Yet in explaining such effects, theorizing has been limited to psychological determinants of self-relevance. Here we examined the contribution physical actions make to this ownership bias. In Experiment 1, participants moved object images on a touch interactive table that either arbitrarily belonged to "self" or "other," and that were moved into locations closer or farther from their bodies. Subsequent recognition was highest for self-owned objects moved closer to the body, as measured via a subsequent memory recall test. In Experiment 2, when participants moved images via keyboard rather than overt action, the proximity effect of the body on attention was abolished. In Experiment 3, participants pulled or pushed self-owned or other-owned object images to side-by-side locations on a touch interactive table. Self-owned objects that were pulled were recognized the most. Our findings demonstrate that physical actions can have a direct impact on the psychological saliency of owned objects, with the act of bringing objects toward the self leading to greater recall.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".