Binocular rivalry of spiral and linear moving random dot patterns in human observers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Binocular rivalry describes the alternating perception of two competing monocular images. It is hypothesized to arise at multiple levels of the visual pathway due to competition between neuronal populations representing the displayed images. We tested whether an enhanced neural representation of expanding motion yields a bias over other spiral motion (i.e., contraction and rotation) and linear motion stimuli during binocular rivalry. We presented random dot patterns of different motion types (i.e., linear and spiral), matched in contrast and speed, to human subjects through a mirror stereoscope. During spiral rivalry, expansion rivalry periods dominated over those of contraction and rotation, and contraction dominated over rotation. During linear motion rivalry, up, down, left, and right directions had similar rivalry periods. All spiral motions dominated over linear motions. Interestingly, when these motion types rivaled against each other, the rivalry periods of spiral motion slightly decreased while those of linear motion significantly increased. This rivalry also caused the bias for expansion relative to other spirals to disappear. Our results suggest a correlation between neuronal representations of different moving patterns and their perception during binocular motion rivalry and provide further evidence that rivalry periods are constrained by the ecologic relevance of stimuli.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".