Intermittent Vision and Goal-Directed Movement: A Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that vision makes an important contribution to the control of goal-directed movements. However, task performance can be maintained when vision is interrupted, such as when a goalkeeper faces a free kick in soccer and the ball moves behind teammates and opposing players. To maintain behavior, it is necessary to process the visual information available from intermittent samples. In this review, we consider the performance and learning effects of intermittent vision in tasks such as aiming, reaching and grasping, goal-directed locomotion and ball-catching. We review research that finds both interocular and intraocular integration contribute to continuous upper limb control with intermittent visual pickup/sampling. Recent work using intermittent visual presentation (i.e., stroboscopic vision) to facilitate learning of general and task-specific visual-motor skills indicates that training/learning protocols that challenge, but don't alter, the visual-motor processing associated with a specific visual-motor task can be effective. In this theoretical context, we discuss methodological and design factors that could impact the effectiveness of future training studies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it