Action intentions result in the task-specific integration of object features
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
Abstract Theories of object-based attention suggest that attending to an object binds its features together. Yet, there is a growing body of work to suggest that the intention to grasp an object can alter the representation of features such that they are separately represented during different stages of motor planning and execution, whereas some object features such as shape and size might form integrated representations when afforded by motor control. However, it remains untested whether these features were integrated as an outcome of the requirements of grasping motor control, or due to attention towards the object in general. Therefore, here we investigated how task-relevancy modulates the integration of grasp-relevant object features. To this end, we recorded electroencephalography while human participants grasped or reached for objects that varied in their orientation and size. Using multivariate analyses, we found a superadditive integration of object orientation and size during action planning for grasping but not reaching. These integrated representations likely facilitated the calculation of stable grasp points as further evidenced by the representations of grasp-specific visual size and grip size emerging at similar times. Our results provide novel insights into the vital role of action intention on cognitive representations in the human brain.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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