Does size really matter? Exploring the interference effects of size and orientation within a sequential grasping task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has suggested that orientation might be more influential in sequential tasks than size information. However, recent evidence from our lab has shown that preparing an action to the second object does not produce interference to the first action, but attending to its size for verbal judgment does. Specifically, as the size of the second object increased, the amplitude of peak grip aperture (PGA) towards the first object also increased when performing the perception condition. The current study was designed in order to incorporate both size and orientation within a sequential task. Participants were required to grasp a cylinder (5cm in diameter) place it on an identified target area and than either grasp or make a perceptual judgment to the second object. The second object was either 3cm or 7cm in length and was either presented on a 45degree angle towards the left or the right. Based on the action-centered model of attention, it was predicted that both conditions would yield similar results when analyzing the interference of the size and orientation of the second object when grasping the cylinder. It was shown that participants' time to reach PGA was faster when the second object was the 3 cm object relative to the 7cm within the action condition. No such differences were found in the perception condition. Reaction times were overall faster in the action condition in comparison to the perception condition. Preliminary analyses provide a hint that orientation information affected grip posture more so than size information.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".