Correspondence between executed and imagined actions extends to allocentric/relative references codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The linear relation between the time of physically executed movements and the index of difficulty–referred to as Fitts' Law–is also reflected in imagined movements. This evidence supports the hypothesized functional equivalence or corresponding neural substrate that governs executed and imagined movements. As the evidence to date may be attributed to the representation of egocentric efferent and reafferent processes, we aimed to examine the influence of allocentric/relative target information and whether perceived (illusory) environmental context impacts imagery. Fifteen participants executed and imagined reciprocal aiming movements at different indexes of difficulty (4, 5, 6). Adapted from the Ebbinghaus illusion, targets were surrounded by no annuli, large annuli (perceptually small target) or small annuli (perceptually large target). A pre-experimental perceptual target size adjustment task confirmed that participants experienced the perceptual illusion. Temporal measures replicated the significant relation between the index of difficulty with executed (r = .99, p < .00) and imagined (r = .99, p < .00) movement times. There was a significant main effect of illusion (p < 0.05) that revealed shorter times for the control compared to perceptually small and large targets (Fisher's LSD; ps .05). These findings suggest that imagery is equally sensitive to surrounding environmental cues, and thus advocate the role of ecological features during imagery.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".