Do Changes in the Body-Part Compatibility Effect Index Tool-Embodiment?
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
Tool-embodiment is said to occur when the representation of the body extends to incorporate the representation of a tool following goal-directed tool-use. The present study was designed to determine if tool-embodiment-like phenomenon emerges following different interventions. Participants completed body-part compatibility task in which they responded with foot or hand presses to colored targets presented on the foot or hand of a model, or on a rake held by the model. This response time (RT) task was performed before and after one of four interventions. In the Virtual-Tangible and the Virtual-Keyboard interventions, participants used customized controllers or keyboards, respectively, to move a virtual rake and ball around a course. Participants in the Tool-Perception intervention manually pointed to targets presented on static images of the virtual tool-use task. Participants in the Tool-Absent group completed math problems and were not exposed to a tool task. Results revealed that all four interventions lead to a pattern of pre-/post-intervention changes in RT thought to indicate the emergence of tool-embodiment. Overall, the study indicated that tool-embodiment can occur through repeated exposure to the body-part compatibility paradigm in the absence of any active tool-use, and that the paradigm may tap into more than just body schema.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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