Antipointing is associated with a compression of visual space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antipointing entails the top-down decoupling of the normally direct spatial relations between a stimulus and response and requires executing a movement mirror-symmetrical to the location of an exogenously presented target. Previous work (Heath et al. 2010: Exp Brain Res) has shown that antipointing is associated with longer reactions times (RT) and less accurate and more variable endpoints than responses with direct SR relations (i.e., propointing). The goal of the present study was to determine whether the aforementioned antipointing behavioural costs relate to the mediation of response planning and execution via the same visual information (i.e., relative) as that associated with perceptual judgments. In particular, we sought to determine whether antipointing elicits a visual compression of perceived target location. To that end, participants (N = 13) completed pro- and antipointing responses in separate blocks to briefly (50 ms) presented targets located 100, 120 and 140 mm left and right of a common home position. Notably, pro- and antipointing responses were completed in conditions wherein responses were directed to veridical target amplitude (i.e., veridical condition) as well as half (i.e., half condition) and double (i.e., double condition) veridical target location. As expected, antipointing responses produced longer RTs than propointing, and RTs for both pro- and anti-pointing tasks were less in the veridical than the half and double conditions. Moreover, pro- and antipointing amplitudes in the veridical and half conditions did not reliably differ (but were more variable in the latter); however, antipointing amplitudes in the double condition were reliably less than their propointing counterparts. As such, results for the double condition indicate that antipointing sensorimotor transformations are governed via the same visual information as that associated with perceptual judgments of distance. In other words, the visual information mediating antipointing is associated with a distance-related compression of visual space. Acknowledgments: Supported by NSERC Discovery and USRA Grants.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".