Eye-hand interference effects reveal distinct spatial interactions in motor planning and execution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eye-hand coordination is a particularly interesting ability because the control plants for effecting each action are distinct and specialized in some aspects – efferent pathways, sensorimotor integration – while their organization overlaps at other levels – serial and temporal planning – of organization. We developed a novel task to investigate whether online spatial interference exists between the coding of eye and hand movements, and if it might be modulated by their respective demands on motor planning. Participants responded to acoustic and visual stimuli with finger taps and saccades. The primary axes of saccades (left-right) and finger taps (up-down) were orthogonal, and we examined the secondary axis of the finger trajectory kinematics for evidence of spatial interference caused by, and spatially congruent to saccades. Experiment 1 required synchronous and periodic tapping and saccading and our results confirmed that both actions were predictive relative to the timing goal, suggesting that temporal parametrization was dependent on a shared goal specified in planning. Saccades in Experiment 2 were non-periodic and timed pseudo-randomly with respect to tapping. We confirmed this evoked reactive saccades in parallel to predictive tapping, which substantiates the separation of these actions at the level of temporal and serial order planning. We observed spatial interference in form of small finger deviations congruent with the saccades, a novel finding that demonstrates coding overflow between action systems. Interestingly, the interference presented differently in the two experiments, and we conclude that different pathways mediate interference depending on the respective goals of each action.Acknowledgments: Sensorimotor and MiNDS labmates, OGS - Susan Morag McNeill Cameron Scholarship
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".