MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402905412 · doi:10.1167/jov.24.10.1409

Visual factors that determine uncertainty in rapid interceptive movements

2024· article· en· W4402905412 on OpenAlexaff
Abibat A. Akande, Philipp Kreyenmeier, Miriam Spering

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to rapidly assess visual motion information is critical for daily tasks that require rapid interceptions such as catching a falling object. When visual information is sparse, interception decisions have to be made under uncertainty. To investigate this in the laboratory, we can constrain the availability of visual information or the time over which information has to be extrapolated. We recorded human observers’ (n=10) eye and hand movements while they viewed the launch of a simulated flyball on a screen. The ball was occluded shortly after launch, and observers had to manually intercept it along its predicted trajectory within a hit zone. We measured interception accuracy in eye and hand movements for different trajectory shapes yielded by ball speed variations. In two sessions, we manipulated uncertainty by either varying ball presentation duration (100-500ms) at constant occlusion duration (500ms), or by varying occlusion duration (100-500ms) at constant presentation duration (500ms). Reducing uncertainty by increasing presentation duration rapidly improved eye and hand interception accuracy and reduced a bias toward the center of the trajectory space that was observed at the shortest presentation duration. These improvements occurred within the first 300ms of ball presentation. By contrast, long occlusion durations yielded a much weaker center-bias. Reducing uncertainty by decreasing occlusion duration from 500-100ms linearly improved interception accuracy until eye and hand interception errors were minimal. The availability of visual information and time available to extrapolate information both determine uncertainty in rapid interceptive control, but they do so at different rates. Effects of presentation duration plateaued early, indicating that 300ms are sufficient to accurately read out visual trajectory information. Occlusion duration improved performance at a later time, as interception switched from predictive to visually-guided control.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
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)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→