Active sensing without efference copy: referent control of perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although action and perception are different behaviors, they are likely to be interrelated, as implied by the notions of perception-action coupling and active sensing. Traditionally, it has been assumed that the nervous system directly preprograms motor commands required for actions and uses a copy of them called efference copy (EC) to also influence our senses. This review offers a critical analysis of the EC concept by identifying its limitations. An alternative to the EC concept is based on the experimentally confirmed notion that sensory signals from receptors are perceived relative to referent signals specified by the brain. These referents also underlie the control of motor actions by predetermining where, in the spatial domain, muscles can work without preprogramming how they should work in terms of motor commands or EC. This approach helps solve several problems of action and explain several sensory experiences, including position sense and the sense that the world remains stationary despite changes in its retinal image during eye or body motion (visual space constancy). The phantom limb phenomenon and other kinesthetic illusions are also explained within this framework.
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 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".