(cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 7 characters in a way that names no letter, so the extractor could not say what they were. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing — the marks are the source’s, not the tagging’s.phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | coordinate transformation uncertainty in reach-to-grasp— “Consequently, target information acquires additional coordinate transformation uncertainty (CTU) during remapping because of errors in joint angle sensing.” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “In summary, we showed that grasping behavior adjusts for coordinate transformation uncertainty introduced by errors in eye position sensing, suggesting the brain has an internal model capable of predicting the consequences of CTU.” | |
| method — evidence | — “To experimentally test for CTU compensation, head-fixed participants repeatedly reached to an occluded cylindrical target while fixating targets that spanned an 80° range of eye positions.” | |
| transfer | from Bayesian statistics: a Bayesian model of location inference used to predict how grip aperture compensates for coordinate-transformation uncertainty— “the amount of compensation is predicted by a Bayesian model for location inference that uses eye-centered storage. information and for changes in CTU when the target INTRODUCTION When humans reach out and grasp an object, information about the object’s location arrives at different times through multiple sensory modalities, each in its own… | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | THE UNCERTAINTY IS MANIPULATED WITHOUT MOVING THE TARGET: the object stays in one place and the participant's EYE POSITION is varied instead, which changes the transformation between eye and head and so adds uncertainty to the remapped location while leaving the object alone— “To address this question, we varied eye position in the head, while participants reached to grasp a spatially fixed object, both when the object was in view and when it was occluded. Varying eye position changes CTU between eye and head, producing additional uncertainty in remapped information away from forward view.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | THE LEVER IS A KNOWN PROPERTY OF THE SYSTEM RATHER THAN AN INTERVENTION: the authors exploit the fact that error in encoding eye position already varies with saccade magnitude and with eccentricity from forward view, so simply choosing where to look sets the uncertainty— “To manipulate CTU between the eyes and head, we took advantage of the fact that error in eye position encoding varies both with saccade magnitude and the eye’s eccentricity away from forward view.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | THE PREDICTION IS BUILT AS A CONDITIONAL WITH BOTH ANTECEDENTS NAMED: if the brain stores targets in eye-centred coordinates AND compensates for the effects of the uncertainty, then the grip aperture must vary with eye position EVEN WHEN THE TARGET CANNOT BE SEEN— “Therefore if the brain stores targets in eye-centered coordinates and compensates for the effects of CTU, it predicts that MGA should also vary as a function of eye position, even when the target is occluded.” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | the target is deliberately NEVER MOVED across the workspace, and the reason is stated: so that any change in reaching behaviour must come from eye position and viewing eccentricity rather than from the kinematic demands of reaching somewhere else— “The cylinder was not moved across the workspace to assure that any changes in reaching behavior resulted from changes in eye position/viewing eccentricity and not kinematic demands.” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | and its position was CHOSEN to maximise the very quantity under study - placed so that the widest possible range of eye positions away from the target was available, giving the greatest range of uncertainty— “Moreover, the cylinder’s location was selected such that there was the maximal range of eye positions away from the target (0 – 80°) to allow for the greatest range of uncertainty.” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | ONE FIXATION POINT IS DROPPED PURELY TO KEEP THE TWO CONDITIONS COMPARABLE: the zero-degree fixation is excluded because the occluder would block both the target and that fixation letter, so the visual and occluded groups see the same set of fixations— “The fixation point corresponding to 0° target eccentricity (I) was excluded to keep similar fixations for both the visual and target occluded participants (because the occluder blocks both the target and the 0° fixation letter).” | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | TWO DESIGNS ARE RUN WITH THE SAME NUMBER OF REPETITIONS PER FIXATION, and the trade-off between them is stated rather than left implicit: the full range captures the functional form of the response profile, the partial range buys statistical power in less time— “Note that the partial and full range conditions both have the same number of repetitions (147) per fixation point. However, the full range condition allowed us to capture the full functional form of the MGA profile, whereas the partial range condition allowed us to gain statistical power over a shorter period of time.” | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | visual information is removed at DIFFERENT MOMENTS DURING the reach using liquid crystal shutter glasses, while separate occluders remove information about the hand and the target— “Occluders were used in the visual and target occluded conditions to remove any information about the hand and target. Moreover, liquid crystal shutter glasses (Milgram 1987) were used to remove visual information at different moments during the reach” | mechanisms[7] |
| mechanism | the read-out is justified by prior work before it is used: maximum grip aperture is known to scale with object size and to INCREASE when visual information is degraded— “Previous work shows that maximum grip aperture scales with object size (Paulignan et al. 1991, 1997) and also increases when visual information is degraded” | mechanisms[8] |
| mechanism | the experimental logic is stated as an if-then over that read-out: if grip aperture changes with eye position when the target is OCCLUDED, that is taken to suggest the brain uses knowledge of the transformation uncertainty when planning a reach from a stored location— “We tested whether reaching behavior similarly adjusts for changes in target location uncertainty introduced by varying CTU. Specifically, participants reached to the remembered locations of occluded targets while eye position was varied. The experimental logic is that if we find that maximum grip aperture changes with eye position when the… | mechanisms[9] |
| builds-on | Sober and Sabes (2005)— “Sober and Sabes (2005) showed that people use knowledge about CTU when integrating current sensory information.” | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | neural and pointing evidence for eye-centred target storage (Batista et al. 1999; Pouget et al. 2002; Henriques et al. 1998; Crawford et al. 2004; Lewald and Ehrenstein 2000; Mergner et al. 2001)— “These results extend previous neural (Batista et al. 1999; Pouget et al. 2002) and psychophysical evidence (from pointing) (Crawford et al. 2004; Henriques et al. 1998; Lewald and Ehrenstein 2000; Mergner et al. 2001) for eyecentered target storage by showing that eye-centered storage persists in a task for which there is no visual… | claim_relations[1] |
| extends | Lewald and Ehrenstein (2000) pointing data— “To show the effect of CTU on pointing behavior, we modeled data from a previously published experiment (Lewald and Ehrenstein 2000).” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | reliability - AS A PROPERTY OF THE STORAGE FORMAT, NOT OF THE MEASUREMENT: the same target information is more or less reliable according to which coordinate frame holds it, because each remapping between frames degrades the estimate— “Consequently, target information acquires additional coordinate transformation uncertainty (CTU) during remapping because of errors in joint angle sensing. As a result, CTU creates differences in the reliability of target information depending on the reference frame used for storage.” | senses[0] |
| control | the whole experiment was re-run on a DIFFERENT GROUP with a visual occluder that showed the target but not the hand — held — rules out that maximum grip aperture reflects something other than uncertainty about object LOCATION - the occluder holds target visibility constant while removing hand vision— “To verify that MGA is a measure of object location uncertainty, we subsequently ran the same experiment on a different group of subjects with a visual occluder that allowed view of the target, but not the hand (Fig. 2, A and B).” | controls[0] |
| control | a fully visual condition run alongside the uncertainty conditions — held — rules out that grip aperture fails to track uncertainty at all - the visual condition establishes that the measure responds when it should— “The visual condition allowed us to verify that MGA is encoding target uncertainty for the task.” | controls[1] |
| audit | remapping —causes→ coordinate transformation uncertainty — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span defines coordinate transformation uncertainty; remapping is not named in it.— “We term the uncertainty about the relationship between body segments caused by imperfect sensory knowledge coordinate transformation uncertainty (CTU; Fig. 1). When there is CTU in a system, estimates are degraded by each transformation made between coordinate frames. Recent work by Sober and Sabes (2005) suggests that people select… | concept_edges[0] |
| note | remapping —causes→ coordinate transformation uncertainty — EVERY CONVERSION BETWEEN REPRESENTATIONS COSTS ACCURACY, STATED FLATLY: '…by each transformation made…' And the system is said to respond by choosing its format accordingly - '…that minimize the impact…' (Sober and Sabes 2005). The format is not a neutral container: it is picked to minimise conversion loss.— “We term the uncertainty about the relationship between body segments caused by imperfect sensory knowledge coordinate transformation uncertainty (CTU; Fig. 1). When there is CTU in a system, estimates are degraded by each transformation made between coordinate frames. Recent work by Sober and Sabes (2005) suggests that people select… | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | remapping —causes→ coordinate transformation uncertainty — 0.9— “We term the uncertainty about the relationship between body segments caused by imperfect sensory knowledge coordinate transformation uncertainty (CTU; Fig. 1). When there is CTU in a system, estimates are degraded by each transformation made between coordinate frames. Recent work by Sober and Sabes (2005) suggests that people select… | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | reference frame —causes→ coordinate transformation uncertainty — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says CTU creates reliability differences DEPENDING ON the reference frame; causes is loose.— “Consequently, target information acquires additional coordinate transformation uncertainty (CTU) during remapping because of errors in joint angle sensing. As a result, CTU creates differences in the reliability of target information depending on the reference frame used for storage.” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | reference frame —causes→ coordinate transformation uncertainty — THE SAME TARGET IS MORE OR LESS RELIABLE DEPENDING ON WHICH FRAME IT IS STORED IN: '…depending on the reference frame used for storage…' The reliability is a property of the storage format rather than of the object measured, which is why the paper can infer the frame from behaviour at all.— “Consequently, target information acquires additional coordinate transformation uncertainty (CTU) during remapping because of errors in joint angle sensing. As a result, CTU creates differences in the reliability of target information depending on the reference frame used for storage.” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | reference frame —causes→ coordinate transformation uncertainty — 0.9— “Consequently, target information acquires additional coordinate transformation uncertainty (CTU) during remapping because of errors in joint angle sensing. As a result, CTU creates differences in the reliability of target information depending on the reference frame… | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the target-uncertainty account of the occluded condition: IT MAY BE THAT HOLDING EYE POSITION AWAY FROM FORWARD VIEW CREATES AN ATTENTIONAL LOAD THAT AFFECTS GRASPING | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — any exclusive claim for eye-centred storage: OUR RESULTS DO NOT PRECLUDE THE POSSIBILITY THAT TARGET INFORMATION IS STORED IN MULTIPLE COORDINATE FRAMES | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the eye-centred conclusion, which the apparatus may have produced: ANOTHER POSSIBILITY IS THAT VISUAL FIXATION MARKS PROMOTED AN EYECENTERED STORAGE STRATEGY | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — the large-memory-uncertainty assumption: WE COULD NOT REJECT A LIMITED MEMORY MODEL ON THE BASIS OF CROSS-TRIAL ANALYSES - ANY INFLUENCES OF FIXATIONS FROM PREVIOUS TRIALS WERE TOO SMALL TO BE RELIABLY MEASURED Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| evidence status note | saccade magnitude → eye position — DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:1), (cid:5). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | unhoused_relations[0] |
| replication | untested | |
| no type for this | saccade magnitude → eye position — THE TWO CANNOT BE SEPARATED IN THIS STUDY - the DESIGN form of the negative relation / No edge type can express it: all eight assert that a relation HOLDS. A confounding statement bounds what the paper's own results can mean, and it lives where nothing downstream will find it. Two sources of the same uncertainty, inseparable because of where the subjects were asked to look. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | unhoused_relations[0] |
| limitation | An attentional-load account of the occluded-condition effect cannot be excluded by the data, only argued against. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The results are consistent with, but do not establish exclusive, eye-centred storage; multiple simultaneous reference frames remain possible. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The visual fixation marks used in the task may themselves have induced the eye-centred storage strategy the study infers. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The model assumes large memory uncertainty and the data could not adjudicate a limited-memory alternative. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| limitation | The paper's own alternative explanation is that the apparatus induced the strategy the study infers: the visual fixation marks may have 'promoted an eye-centered storage strategy', being usable to maintain a representation of the body's configuration with respect to the apparatus. It is raised as a possibility and not settled, so the inference from behaviour to storage frame is conditional on the fixation marks not having supplied the frame. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | the amount of compensation is predicted by a Bayesian eye-centered model Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | sensory information in different reference frames must be remapped into a common frame before integration Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| variable | eye position (manipulated independent variable) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[0] |
| variable | maximum grip aperture (dependent variable) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[1] |
| evidence status note | variable — THE QUOTE STOPS WHERE THE EXTRACTED TEXT GOES OUT OF ORDER: after its last word the extraction gives 'visual' and then 'is occluded. Moreover, …', but the words between them ('information and for changes in CTU…') appear further on, so the sentence cannot be completed from this copy. | content_tags.variables[1] |
| definition | coordinate transformation uncertainty (CTU) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| key-terms | coordinate transformation uncertainty, sensorimotor control, Bayesian inference, eye-centered coordinates, grasping, reference frames |
| concept | remapping Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| concept | reference frame Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| concept | fixation marks Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[6] |
| Bayesian | as written: Bayesian model Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824