Building visual representations: The binding of relative spatial relations across time
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the construction of, and subsequent access to, representations regarding the relative spatial and temporal relations among sequentially presented objects was examined using eye movement monitoring. Participants were presented with a series of single objects. Subsequently, a test display revealed all three objects simultaneously and participants judged whether the relative relations were maintained. Eye movements revealed the binding of relations across study images; eye movements transitioned between the location of the presented object and the locations that were previously occupied by objects in prior study images. For the test displays, changes in the relative relations were accurately detected. Eye movements distinguished intact displays from those in which the relations had been altered. Order of fixations to objects in test images mimicked the temporal order in which objects had been studied, but disruption of temporal order was observed for manipulated images. The present findings suggest that memory representations regarding the visual world include information about the relative spatial and temporal relations among objects. Eye movements may be the conduit by which information is integrated into a lasting representation, and by which current information is compared to stored representations.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it