Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Torsional eye movements are considered reflexive responses to visual image rotation or to head roll about the visual axis. Recent studies indicate that torsion scales with visual stimulus properties such as rotational direction, speed and size, indicating a voluntary component. However, it is unclear whether these eye movements can be modulated by cognitive factors such as expectation. Method: Head-fixed healthy human adults (n=6) viewed a textured disk, translating horizontally to the right across a computer monitor and rotating about its center. This type of stimulus triggers horizontal smooth pursuit eye movements with a torsional component. Stimulus rotation was either clockwise, in the same direction as a rolling ball ("natural"), or counterclockwise ("unnatural"). In baseline trials, the texture moved horizontally without rotation. These three rotation conditions were presented in separate blocks of 100 trials each, two blocks per condition, to elicit cognitive expectation of rotational direction. Three-dimensional eye position was recorded with a head-mounted Chronos eye tracker. Results: Observers initiated horizontal pursuit 250 ms prior to stimulus onset in anticipation of translational stimulus motion. This effect was stronger for baseline than for rotation conditions, indicating that stimulus rotation is taken into account when computing anticipatory horizontal pursuit velocity. Interestingly, the eyes also started rotating clockwise in response to "natural" and counterclockwise in response to "unnatural" rotation prior to stimulus onset in anticipation of stimulus rotation. Conclusions: Torsional eye movements can be modulated by cognitive factors, indicating a strong voluntary component in the control of these movements. The frontal pursuit pathway, including areas such as the frontal eye field, might carry ocular torsion signals and underlie the effects of cognitive expectation on ocular torsion. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2017
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".