Eye Tracking of Occluded Self-Moved Targets: Role of Haptic Feedback and Hand-Target Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies on smooth pursuit eye movements have shown that humans can continue to track the position of their hand, or a target controlled by the hand, after it is occluded, thereby demonstrating that arm motor commands contribute to the prediction of target motion driving pursuit eye movements. Here, we investigated this predictive mechanism by manipulating both the complexity of the hand-target mapping and the provision of haptic feedback. Two hand-target mappings were used, either a rigid (simple) one in which hand and target motion matched perfectly or a nonrigid (complex) one in which the target behaved as a mass attached to the hand by means of a spring. Target animation was obtained by asking participants to oscillate a lightweight robotic device that provided (or not) haptic feedback consistent with the target dynamics. Results showed that as long as 7 s after target occlusion, smooth pursuit continued to be the main contributor to total eye displacement (∼60%). However, the accuracy of eye-tracking varied substantially across experimental conditions. In general, eye-tracking was less accurate under the nonrigid mapping, as reflected by higher positional and velocity errors. Interestingly, haptic feedback helped to reduce the detrimental effects of target occlusion when participants used the nonrigid mapping, but not when they used the rigid one. Overall, we conclude that the ability to maintain smooth pursuit in the absence of visual information can extend to complex hand-target mappings, but the provision of haptic feedback is critical for the maintenance of accurate eye-tracking performance.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".