Haptic awareness changes when lying down
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate localization of touch requires the integration of two reference frames-an internal (e.g., anatomical) and an external (e.g., spatial). Using a tactile temporal order judgement task with the hands crossed over the midline, we investigated the integration of these two reference frames. We manipulated the reliability of the visual and vestibular information, both of which contribute to the external reference frame. Visual information was manipulated between experiments (Experiment 1 was done with full vision and Experiment 2 was done while wearing a blindfold). Vestibular information was manipulated in both experiments by having the two groups of participants complete the task in both an upright posture and one where they were lying down on their side. Using a Bayesian hierarchical model, we estimated the perceptual weight applied to these reference frames. Lying participants on their side reduced the weight applied to the external reference frame and produced a smaller deficit; blindfolding resulted in similar reductions. These findings reinforce the importance of the visual system when weighting tactile reference frames, and highlight the importance of the vestibular system in this integration.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".