Visual search for reach targets in actionable space is influenced by movement costs imposed by obstacles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real world search tasks often involve action on a target object once it has been located. However, few studies have examined whether movement-related costs associated with acting on located objects influence visual search. Here, using a task in which participants reached to a target object after locating it, we examined whether people take into account obstacles that increase movement-related costs for some regions of the reachable search space but not others. In each trial, a set of 36 objects (4 targets and 32 distractors) were displayed on a vertical screen and participants moved a cursor to a target after locating it. Participants had to fixate on an object to determine whether it was a target or distractor. A rectangular obstacle, of varying length, location, and orientation, was briefly displayed at the start of the trial. Participants controlled the cursor by moving the handle of a robotic manipulandum in a horizontal plane. The handle applied forces to simulate contact between the cursor and the unseen obstacle. We found that search, measured using eye movements, was biased to regions of the search space that could be reached without moving around the obstacle. This result suggests that when deciding where to search, people can incorporate the physical structure of the environment so as to reduce the movement-related cost of subsequently acting on the located target.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".