Gaze-related functions driving gaze anchoring in reaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When reaching to a target, we typically direct our gaze to the target throughout the reach. If a secondary saccade target is presented during the reach, and we are instructed to shift our gaze to this target, the gaze shift is generally delayed until the reach target has been attained—a phenomenon known as gaze anchoring. Here, we compared gaze anchoring in human participants when reaching to a visual target versus a visual-haptic target providing force feedback upon contact. We also examined gaze anchoring in a bimanual context in which participants reached with their right hand and were instructed to both shift their gaze and move their left hand to the secondary target as soon as it appeared. We found that, during the reaching movement, gaze was anchored to the target for both visual and visual-haptic targets. In the visual-haptic condition, gaze appeared to be anchored during the initial directing phase of the reach during which peripheral vision directs the hand to the vicinity of the target. In the visual condition, gaze appeared to be anchored during both the directing phase and subsequent guiding phase during which central visual guides the hand. In two-handed reaching, gaze anchoring was observed but anchoring did not extend to the left hand, which started moving before the eyes. Overall, our findings indicate that the timing of eye and hand movements in object manipulation is linked to the function of target fixations. New & Noteworthy When reaching to a visual target, gaze is typically anchored to the target even when a competing saccade target appears. We show that anchoring also occurs for visual–haptic targets but is limited to the initial phase of the reach, likely because vision is not required to confirm target attainment. In contrast to gaze, anchoring is not observed for the non-reaching hand, which can begin moving to a competing target as soon as it appears.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".