Human Action Perception is Consistent, Flexible, and Orientation Dependent
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
Previous research has found that observers of object-directed human action pay more attention to information regarding hand contact over information regarding spatial trajectories in action, and that processing of trajectory information is disrupted by inversion. However, observers can also flexibly modulate their attention to spatial trajectory depending on the goal or context of the actor. In Experiments 1(a) and 1b of the current research, we directly compared attention with hand and trajectory information across placing and dropping actions in order to determine whether the hand bias is always present or whether flexibility in action perception can attenuate this bias. Results demonstrated that observers attend more to hand information for placing, but attend equally to hand and trajectory information for dropping. Experiment 2 explored the role of the actor's goal in processing spatial trajectory for mimed dropping actions and non-human control stimuli, and the role of goals in the inversion effect. Results indicated that goal relevance increases processing of trajectory information, and that processing of all spatial trajectories in human action is disrupted by inversion, regardless of the actor's goal. The present findings highlight the role of prediction in action perception, and suggest that human action is processed with expertise.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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