Sensory context dependent remapping of proprioceptive targets into a gaze-centred reference frame requires additional processing of visual information during movement planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Movements programmed to proprioceptive targets can be coded in both gaze-centred and intrinsic sensory reference frames (Pouget et al., 2002; Bernier et al., 2007). It is unclear however what factors contribute to the preferential use of one reference frame over another. The present study examined if the sensory information used to identify the spatial location of proprioceptive targets affects how they are mapped. Ten participants performed reaching movements to proprioceptive and visual targets identified by either an auditory, or a vibrotactile cue. Fixation positions were systematically altered to determine the extent that movements were mapped in gaze-centred coordinates. Results revealed that auditory cues facilitated the use of a visual reference frame as gaze position biased reaching endpoint deviations for both types of auditory-cued targets (either visual or proprioceptive) to a greater extent than vibrotactile-cued proprioceptive targets. To determine if the noted gaze-centred remapping of auditory-cued proprioceptive targets influenced the cortical processing of visual information, a second experiment was conducted. The cortical response to a visual flash was recorded by electroencephalography as 10 new participants planned reaches to both auditory–cued proprioceptive, and auditory-cued visual targets. Results indicated that visually-evoked potentials were greater for movements planned to proprioceptive targets compared to those planned to visual targets. This suggests that the remapping of proprioceptive targets into a visual reference frame requires a greater processing of visual information during movement planning. Overall, these experiments provide evidence for the importance of sensory context in the mapping of proprioceptive targets prior to goal directed action. Acknowledgments: NSERC, CAMPUS FRANCE
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".