Reliability of Tactile Perception and Suppression Measurements
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
Tactile signals arising on one's own body allow estimation of one's sensory state and foster interactions with the environment. However, tactile perception can be influenced by various factors. For instance, tactile perception is suppressed on a moving limb compared to when it is resting, a phenomenon termed tactile suppression. Here, we examine whether tactile perception during resting and during movement is robust over shorter and longer time intervals. Participants had to detect tactile stimuli of various intensities on their index finger while this finger was resting or moving (finger extension). This detection task was performed in four sessions on separate days across a period of one month. We found that tactile perception during resting is robust within single sessions and across days. However, tactile perception during movement changed across days, but these changes lacked a clear systematic pattern. We further show that temporal changes in perception alone cannot fully account for the previously reported tactile suppression effects. Finally, split-half correlations reveal high consistency in the estimated perceptual measures, demonstrating that estimates of tactile perception are robust across measurement points.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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