MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004050664 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/bqr6u

Voluntary Hand Movements Discipline Audiovisual Perception

2020· preprint· en· W3004050664 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Yousef

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)PerceptionCognitionPsychologySensory systemNeurosciencePremotor cortexCognitive psychologyVisual perceptionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We had shown that deep breathing had been able to effectively and timely alter visual and auditory bistable perception, see reference 1, 2. Deep breathing requires cognitive control, and therefore, in this study, we decide to investigate whether voluntary movements of human hands are able to govern the audiovisual perception using an integrative stimulus that’s built up with the aforementioned visual and auditory stimuli. Astoundingly, when the human subjects moves a pointer (hand) in harmony with the actual physical direction; the original materials of the audiovisual stimulus appear. Reversed perception, namely, illusory motion reversals and illusory word appear when the pointer is moved in the opposite direction of the actual motion. Cognitive actions’ brain areas, namely, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, premotor cortex, and primary motor cortex may require high concentration of oxygenated hemoglobin in the red blood cells to achieve fulsome executive movements; and this could results in significant reduction of the concentrations of the oxygenated hemoglobin in the red blood cells in the visual and auditory cortices. Reductions that deactivate one of two; the central versus the peripheral conscious brains (dedicated for audiovisual perceptions); deactivation that causes stoppage against bistable audiovisual perception will occur. We thus hypothesis that the DLPFC may send signals to deactivate the peripheral areas in the sensory brain regions when the cognitive action is harmonized with the actual material; but it may send a contrary signal to deactivate the central areas in the sensory brain regions when the cognitive action and the actual material are disharmonized.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207