Visual Uncertainty Unveils the Distinct Role of Haptic Cues in Multisensory Grasping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human multisensory grasping movements (i.e., seeing and feeling a handheld object while grasping it with the contralateral hand) are superior to movements guided by each separate modality. This multisensory advantage might be driven by the integration of vision with either the haptic position only or with both position and size cues. To contrast these two hypotheses, we manipulated visual uncertainty (central vs peripheral vision) and the availability of haptic cues during multisensory grasping. We showed a multisensory benefit regardless of the degree of visual uncertainty suggesting that the integration process involved in multisensory grasping can be flexibly modulated by the contribution of each modality. Increasing visual uncertainty revealed the role of the distinct haptic cues. The haptic position cue was sufficient to promote multisensory benefits evidenced by faster actions with smaller grip apertures, whereas the haptic size was fundamental in fine-tuning the grip aperture scaling. These results support the hypothesis that, in multisensory grasping, vision is integrated with all haptic cues, with the haptic position cue playing the key part. Our findings highlight the important role of nonvisual sensory inputs in sensorimotor control and hint at the potential contributions of the haptic modality in developing and maintaining visuomotor functions.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".