Familiarity with the visual environment affects our expectations about the objects in a scene, aiding in recognition and interaction. Here we tested whether the familiarity with the specific trajectory followed by a moving target facilitates the interpretation of the effects of underlying physical forces. Participants intercepted a target sliding down either an inclined plane or a tautochrone. Gravity accelerated the target by the same amount in both cases, but the inclined plane represented a familiar trajectory whereas the tautochrone was unfamiliar to the participants. In separate sessions, the gravity field was consistent with either natural gravity or artificial reversed gravity. Target motion was occluded from view over the last segment. We found that the responses in the session with unnatural forces were systematically delayed relative to those with natural forces, but only for the inclined plane. The time shift is consistent with a bias for natural gravity, in so far as it reflects an a priori expectation that a target not affected by natural forces will arrive later than one accelerated downwards by gravity. Instead, we did not find any significant time shift with unnatural forces in the case of the tautochrone. We argue that interception of a moving target relies on the integration of the high-level cue of trajectory familiarity with low-level cues related to target kinematics.
We aimed to examine the differences in articles, peer review and editorial processes in Medical and Health Sciences vs. Social Sciences. Our data source was Open Research Central (ORC) portal, which hosts several journal platforms for post-publication peer review, allowing the analysis of articles from their submission, regardless of the publishing outcome. The study sample included 51 research articles that had Social Sciences tag only and 361 research articles with Medical and Health Sciences tag only. Levenshtein distance analysis showed that text changes over article versions in social science papers were statistically significant in the Introduction section. Articles from Social Sciences had longer Introduction and Conclusion sections and higher percentage of articles with merged Discussion and Conclusion sections. Articles from Medical and Health Sciences followed the Introduction-Methods-Results-Discussion (IMRaD) structure more frequently and contained fewer declarations and non IMRaD sections, but more figures. Social Sciences articles had higher Word Count, higher Clout, and less positive Tone. Linguistic analysis revealed a more positive Tone for peer review reports for articles in Social Sciences and higher Achievement and Research variables. Peer review reports were significantly longer for articles in Social Sciences but the two disciplines did not differ in the characteristics of the peer review process at all stages between the submitted and published version. This may be due to the fact that they were published on the same publication platform, which uses uniform policies and procedures for both types of articles.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.