Sensory modalities influence on hand perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has found that the perception of one's hands is inaccurate. Furthermore, this inaccuracy has certain distinguishable patterns including an overestimation of hand width and an underestimation of finger length. The aim of the present study is to investigate the influence of vision to this distorted perception. Participants were required to place their hand underneath a glass tabletop and point to ten locations on their hand when their hand was visible (real condition) or hidden from view (perception condition). Participants had vision throughout the task (Group 1) or wore a blindfold during the perception portion of the task (Group 2). They completed the task by pointing with their own finger or with a wooden stylus, to investigate if proprioceptive feedback of the pointing hand influenced hand perception. The task was completed with both the right and left hands. Results replicated previous findings of an overestimation of hand width and underestimation of finger length, but participants were more accurate when vision was unavailable (Group 2). This finding suggests that vision interferes with hand representation. Proprioceptive feedback of the pointing hand played only a minor role with slightly more accurate representation when pointing with the finger. Finally, when compared to the left hand, right hand estimates were more distorted regardless of visual availability and pointer effector (finger or stylus).
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".