Spatial localization of targets with the eyes open, eyes closed, or while blindfolded
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined differences in accuracy during memory-guided positioning movements while participants had their eyes-closed versus eyes-open, but blindfolded. Participants performed target relocations in three conditions; blindfolded with eyes-open, eyes-closed, and eyes-open. Individuals were expected to be more accurate in the eyes-closed versus the blindfolded condition because closing the eyelids creates a neural signal indicating that vision will be unavailable for sensory-guidance. When blindfolded, the system may use the occluded vision which could interfere with feedback-based processes. Sixteen right-hand dominant participants were recruited. Four targets were placed at 10cm or 30cm from a home position at heights of 10cm or 20cm. Participants made 10 relocations of each target under each vision condition. For an attempt, participants found the top of a dowel and returned to the home position. The dowel was removed and participants relocated the target. Participants triggered an optoelectronic recording at the predicted location. Analyses of radial error revealed main effects of Visual Condition, F(2,30)=48.13, p Acknowledgments: Canada Foundation for Innovation
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".