The impact of response complexity and cue modality when performing a choice eye-hand coordination task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Actions aid our ability to communicate. Actions that support communication range in complexity and the motor plan may incorporate information from multiple sensory stimuli. The present study sought to understand how individuals plan and execute movements related to communication. Potential targets were presented on a touchscreen monitor and occupied 2 degrees of visual angle. An auditory (animal sound) or visual (animal picture) cue was presented along with the two pictures of animals located 16.5 degrees of visual angle to the left and right of the central fixation point. Participants (n=24, Meanage=25.1±4.42 years) sat with their forehead resting in an EyeLink1000plus eye-tracker configured in tower arm mount (SR Research Ltd., Ottawa, ON; 500Hz collection frequency). Participants were asked to look, press a key, or point, to the correct image on the touchscreen monitor (CNE, Gainsville, FL) as quickly and accurately as possible. Saccade and hand reaction times (RT) were analyzed. In all conditions, the visual stimulus produced a shorter RT than the auditory stimulus, which is consistent with vision being the preferred modality for a target localization task. Saccade RT was longest and most variable in the eyes-only condition, suggesting eye movements alone were more challenging and novel. Hand RT was longer and more variable for the key-press condition, which is thought to indicate better integration of peripheral vision during pointing movements. Compared to previous studies, participants were better able to prepare a motor plan for a more complex eye-hand coordinated task because the target was located in peripheral vision.Acknowledgments: Funding for this research was provided by Research Manitoba, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".