Hand proximity biases overt – not covert – orienting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The various effects of altered vision near the hands are sometimes hard to reconcile. For example, the first two major investigations in this literature reported near-hand attentional prioritization and no interaction with peripheral cues (Reed, Grubb, & Steele, 2006) and prolonged attentional disengagement and interactions with peripheral cues (Abrams, Davoli, Du, Knapp, & Paull, 2008). Noting these and other discrepancies, the modulated visual pathways (MVP) theory proposed an alternate account, whereby hand proximity up-regulates magnocellular processing via the dorsal stream. This theory posits an alternative explanation for earlier reports of attentional prioritization (faster detection RTs) for peripheral targets in near-hand space: Eye movements should be faster toward stimuli appearing in near-hand space due to an enhanced collicular response. We conducted two experiments to investigate this alternative account. First, we conducted a close replication of Reed et al.'s (2006) spatial cueing task using eye-tracking and a strict gaze-contingent window at fixation, forcing covert rather than overt orienting. When eye movements were expressly forbidden, we failed to replicate the faster detection for stimuli in near-hand space, suggesting that earlier reports were caused by biases in eye movements or starting eye position. Second, we put MVP to the test in a fixation-offset gap effect paradigm. Participants made speeded eye movements to peripheral onsets either with or without a fixation stimulus. The presence of a fixation stimulus inhibits the activity of burst neurons in the superior colliculus, slowing eye movements. According to MVP, hand proximity should up-regulate the collicular signal, reducing saccadic RTs in the presence of a fixation stimulus. Consistent with this expectation, we observed faster saccadic RTs with a fixation stimulus near versus far from the hand. This reduced gap effect is difficult to explain with an attentional account of altered vision near the hands. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".