Visual factors that determine sensory uncertainty in rapid interceptive hand movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tracking and intercepting a moving object requires predicting its trajectory, an ability that depends on the reliability of the available motion information. We investigated two common sources that limit the reliability (certainty) of visual motion information during laboratory object interception: how long an object is shown and how long it is occluded. A simulated flyball was shown briefly on a screen and then occluded before it entered a hit zone. Observers tracked the trajectory of the ball with their eyes and intercepted it in the hit zone with a rapid pointing movement. In a two-part experiment, we either varied the presentation of the ball or occlusion duration. Short presentation duration produced a strong center bias in hand movements, but long occlusion duration yielded only a weak center bias. Whereas the center bias merely improved with long presentation durations, it was fully resolved when occlusion duration was short. These findings indicate that sensorimotor decisions under uncertainty might have to rely more on priors when an object is presented briefly versus when it is occluded for longer periods. Eye and hand movement accuracy were correlated across levels of uncertainty, confirming that predictive processes guiding these effectors share a common readout of motion information.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".