Driving a rotating Necker Cube: context position matters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. Previously we reported that the relative rotation speeds of an ambiguous Necker cube and the context figure that triggered its reversals was not important for the strength of correlation between the two objects’ reversals. Here we examine whether their relative positions are important. Method. The context figure was an unambiguous skeleton cube that rotated at the same speed as the ambiguous Necker cube. The two figures were presented on either side of a fixation cross at 2.86 degrees of eccentricity, along the horizontal (0,180 deg), vertical (90, 270 deg) and diagonal (45, 135, 225, 315 deg) axes that connected the figures. Observers indicated via button press the direction of rotation of the Necker cube during each 32s trial. The data was subject to a type of reverse correlation analysis to establish the correlation between the motion reversals of the context and Necker cube. Results. Strongest contextual influences were observed when the context figure was directly below the Necker cube. Conclusion. These results are consistent with the idea that perceived frictional relationships are important for the perception of rotating reversible figures. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2015
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".