MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312104753 · doi:10.1101/2022.12.09.519832

Rapid Audiovisual Integration Guides Predictive Actions

2022· preprint· en· W4312104753 on OpenAlexaff
Philipp Kreyenmeier, Anna Schroeger, Rouwen Cañal‐Bruland, Markus Raab, Miriam Spering

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInterceptionBall (mathematics)Eye movementQUIETSpeech recognitionComputer visionCommunicationArtificial intelligencePsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Natural movements, such as catching a ball or capturing prey, typically involve multiple senses. Yet, laboratory studies on human movements commonly focus solely on vision and ignore sound. Here we ask how visual and auditory signals are integrated to guide interceptive movements. Human observers tracked the brief launch of a simulated baseball, randomly paired with batting sounds of varying intensities, and made a quick pointing movement at the ball. Movement endpoints revealed systematic overestimation of target speed when ball launch was paired with a loud versus a quiet sound, even though sound was never informative. This effect was modulated by the availability of visual information: sounds biased interception when ball presentation time was short. Continuous eye movements uncovered that sound affected interception within 125 ms of ball launch and revealed a correction of the sound-induced bias when more visual information was available. Our findings suggest that auditory and visual signals are integrated to guide interception and that this integration process must occur early at a site that receives auditory and visual signals within an ultrashort timespan.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207