Peri-hand space: A helping hand for faster object recognition in children.
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
Visual processing is altered for stimuli located near the hands, in what is termed peri-hand space, but it is unclear whether peri-hand effects are stable across the lifespan. To investigate this, adults and 5- to 8-year-old children completed a naturalistic visual search task on a touchscreen monitor while wearing eye-tracking glasses. Upon recognizing a previously specified target image in a 12-image array, they released a pushbutton with their left index finger in order to reach out and touch the target. Participants completed the task twice, once with their right hand positioned on the monitor beside the visual array and once with their right hand positioned in their lap. Both children and adults were faster at recognizing the target when their right hand was near the array, but the magnitude of this peri-hand effect was greater in children than adults. The results are discussed in relation to the idea that object recognition may be facilitated within peri-hand space to a greater extent during childhood. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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