MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964346760 · doi:10.1159/000314284

A Taxonomy of Different Forms of Visual Motion Detection and Their Underlying Neural Mechanisms

2010· review· en· W1964346760 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Behavior and Evolution · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMotion (physics)Computer visionMotion perceptionBiological motionCommunicationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple taxonomy of different forms of visual motion is presented to show that there may be a hierarchical system of processing of visual motion in the brain, and that this is first split into self-produced motion and object motion, and then further into various forms of animate and inanimate motion patterns. Further refinement results in specific mechanisms which stem from specific demands of an animal's life-style and ecological niche. Examples are presented of the underlying neural mechanisms for some of these different classes of visual motion processing, such as simple object motion, looming and time to collision, and stereopsis from the object motion processing subsystem. In contrast, other examples of the neural mechanisms from the self-produced motion system include simple canonical flow field analysis, translation and rotation for guiding action in 3D space, and motion parallax for depth perception. The taxonomy thus provides a framework that may guide future research on how the brain detects and processes other dynamic visual patterns.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it