Grasping to "air" influences the nature of the visual information mediating aperture shaping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work (Holmes et al. 2013: J Mot Behav) has shown that actions entailing dissociable spatial relations between stimulus and response are mediated via relative visual information. In particular, grasping to an area offset from a veridical target renders aperture shaping that adheres to the psychophysical principles of Weber’s law. The goal of the present study was to determine whether the aforementioned results are attributed to: 1. the dissociation between the target and the grasping response or, 2. the absence of a veridical (i.e., graspable) target at movement offset. To accomplish our objective, we employed open-loop grasping responses to differently sized (20, 30, 40 and 50 mm) target objects in conditions wherein: 1. the to-be-grasped object remained present throughout the response (i.e., veridical grasping) and, 2. the to-be-grasped object was removed prior to movement onset (i.e., pantomime-grasping). The different conditions were performed in separate blocks. Thus, the critical between-condition difference was premovement knowledge relating to whether a graspable object would be present at movement offset. As expected, results for the veridical grasping condition showed that late aperture shaping violated Weber’s law: a result demonstrating the use of absolute visual information. In contrast, aperture trajectories for the pantomime-grasping condition showed an early through late adherence to Weber’s law. Such results demonstrate that the absence of a veridical target represents a pivotal factor in the mediation of aperture trajectories via relative visual information. Moreover, our results indicate that pantomime-grasping does not represent a proxy for understanding the visual control of grasping.Acknowledgments: Supported by NSERC.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".