Size scaling compensates for sensitivity loss produced by a simulated central scotoma in a shape-from-texture task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of eccentricity-dependent sensitivity loss typically require participants to maintain fixation while making judgments about stimuli presented at a range of sizes and eccentricities. However, training participants to fixate can prove difficult, and as stimulus size increases, they become poorly localized and may even encroach on the fovea. In the present experiment, we controlled eccentricity of stimulus presentation using a simulated central scotoma of variable size. Participants were asked to perform a 27-alternative forced-choice shape-from-texture task in the presence of a simulated scotoma, with stimulus size and scotoma radius as the independent variables. The resulting psychometric functions for each simulated scotoma were shifted versions of each other on a log size axis. Therefore, stimulus magnification was sufficient to equate sensitivity to shape from texture for all scotoma radii. Increasing scotoma radius also disrupts eye movements, producing increases in fixation frequency and duration, as well as saccade length.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".