MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252237309 · doi:10.1068/ic885

Visual and Proprioceptive Contributions to the Perception of one's Body

2011· article· en· W4252237309 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuei-Perception · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBody schemaPerceptionProprioceptionPsychologyStimulus (psychology)Body surfaceCommunicationBody postureIllusionPerspective (graphical)Body positionTorsoCognitive psychologyComputer visionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceGeometryAnatomyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The perception of one's body includes distinguishing one's body from other objects and creating an internal body representation. In this talk I will review evidence suggesting that localizing a tactile stimulus on the body surface involves a body representation that is at least partially coded in visual coordinates and that the view of one's body needs to be synchronous in time and aligned in space with non-visual information to be treated as one's own. The former claim comes from the effect of eye and head position on localizing a touch on the arm or torso. The latter claim comes from experiments in which the perspective from which the hand or head was viewed was altered using an electronic mirror. When the perspective was consistent with viewing one's own body (either directly or in a mirror) subjects were more sensitive at detecting temporal asynchronies between visual and non-visual cues to movement of that body part. These results will be discussed in terms of allocentric and egocentric coding of the body.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.302 · 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