Contribution of auditory distance cues to size constancy in perception and grasping in restricted viewing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When vision is restricted, proprioceptive distance cues fully restore size constancy for scaling grip aperture when grasping objects, despite only limited improvement in perceptual judgments of object size. This suggests that specific task demands and associated neural mechanisms determine the relative weighting of cues during multisensory integration. Is this specific to proprioceptive cues? Here, we examined the contribution of auditory information to perception and action systems under restricted viewing conditions. Surprisingly, in contrast to proprioception, providing auditory distance information had no impact whatsoever on size constancy in grasping but did improve perceptual judgments of size. After participants received extensive training in discriminating distance from auditory cues, there was a modest improvement in grip scaling. Taken together, we suggest that the neural mechanisms mediating grasping cannot incorporate distance information from audition as easily as they can from proprioception when computing real-world object size, but this ability can be improved with training.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".