Back

A latent 5-dimensional space for action representation: Geometric validity and dissociation from kinematics

Barraclough, N. E.

2026-06-15 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.06.09.731166 bioRxiv
Show abstract

A fundamental question in visual perception is how the human visual system transforms the rich kinematic information present in observed actions into coherent social meaning. We addressed this by validating a 5-dimensional action space model - defined by Formidableness, Friendliness, Locomotion, Abduction, and Environmental Interaction - as a perceptual representation of avatar-conveyed actions. Using Representational Similarity Analysis, we first demonstrated strong topological correspondence between the models geometry and the structure of independent perceptual judgements, with cross-validated regression confirming the model as a generative framework that reliably predicts how observers evaluate novel actions. A morphing paradigm further revealed that perceptual ratings scaled approximately linearly with geometric distances along model dimensions, with each dimension selectively predicting its corresponding perceptual quality, satisfying the criteria for a valid psychological metric space. Critically, the 5D model showed substantially stronger alignment with semantic representations of actions than with their raw skeletal kinematics - an association robust to statistical control for kinematic similarity. This dissociation suggests that higher-order social-evaluative dimensions of action perception are largely invariant to low-level motion statistics, consistent with a hierarchical visual processing architecture in which kinematic input is progressively abstracted into a compact, semantically organised representational space optimised for social inference.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.