Anti-pointing requires conscious visual percept to support motor output
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to reach and grasp an object is accompanied by an innate experience of conscious access to the visual information supporting the response. However, actions can be performed in the absence of conscious visual awareness – a phenomenon attributed to the separate pathways supporting perceptions (i.e., ventral pathway) and actions (i.e., dorsal pathway). For example, reaching responses performed in a backward masking paradigm demonstrate speed-accuracy relations regardless of whether participants are 'aware' or 'unaware' of target size, whereas perceptual judgments require access to a conscious visual percept (Binsted et al. 2008: Proc Natal Acad Sci USA). The present study sought to determine whether a response requiring decoupled spatial relations between stimulus and response is mediated via the same 'unconscious' visual information as their target-directed counterparts. To that end, participants: (1) reported the size of target objects in 'no-mask' and 'mask' conditions (i.e., perceptual task), and (2) reached directly to (i.e., pro-pointing) and mirror-symmetrical (i.e., anti-pointing) to the same 'no-mask' and 'mask' targets. Results for the perceptual task showed that participants could accurately report the size of a target object in 'no mask' but not 'mask' trials. For the reaching task, results indicated that 'no mask' pro-pointing trials elicited reliable speed-accuracy relations, whereas 'mask' pro-pointing as well as anti-pointing (i.e., 'no-mask' and 'mask') did not. These results demonstrate that anti-pointing renders the structuring of a response via a conscious visual percept and that the top-down demands associated with response mediation influence the nature of the visual information supporting motor output.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".