Instruction Alters the Influence of Allocentric Landmarks in a Reach Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Allocentric landmarks have an implicit influence on aiming movements, but it is not clear how an explicit instruction (to aim relative to a landmark) influences reach accuracy and precision. Here, 12 participants performed a task with two instruction conditions ( egocentric vs. allocentric ), but with similar sensory and motor conditions. Participants fixated gaze near the centre of a display aligned with their right shoulder while a target stimulus briefly appeared alongside a visual landmark in one visual field. After a brief mask/memory delay the landmark then re-appeared at a different location (same or opposite visual field), creating an ego/allocentric conflict. In the egocentric condition, participants were instructed to ignore the landmark and point towards the remembered location of the target. In the allocentric condition, participants were instructed to remember the initial target location relative to the landmark and then reach relative to the shifted landmark (same/opposite visual field). To equalize motor execution between tasks, participants were instructed to anti-point (point to the visual field opposite to the remembered target) on 50 % of the egocentric trials. Participants were more accurate, precise, and quicker to react in the allocentric condition, especially when pointing to the opposite field. We also observed a visual field effect, where performance was worse overall in the right visual field. These results suggest that when egocentric and allocentric cues conflict, explicit use of the visual landmark provides better reach performance than reliance on noisy egocentric signals. Such instructions might aid rehabilitation when the egocentric system is compromised by disease or injury. Highlights 12 participants reached to remembered targets in the presence of a visual landmark Participants were instructed to ignore, or point relative to, the landmark The landmark instruction improved reaction time, precision, and accuracy These effects were stronger when pointing was cued toward the opposite visual field Knowledge of these rules might be used to enhance performance or in rehabilitation
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".