Replicating and Extending Bourdon's (1902) Experiment on Motion Parallax
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bourdon conducted the first laboratory experiment on observer-produced motion parallax as a cue to depth. In three experiments, we replicated and extended Bourdon's experiment. In experiment 1, we reproduced his finding: when the two cues, motion parallax and relative height, were combined, accuracy of depth perception was high, and when the two cues were in conflict, accuracy was lower. In experiment 2, the relative height cue was replaced with relative retinal image size. As in experiment 1, when the two cues (motion parallax and relative retinal image size) were combined, accuracy was high, but when they were in conflict, it was lower. In experiment 3, the stimuli from experiments 1 and 2 were viewed monocularly with head movement and binocularly without head movement. In the binocular conditions, accuracy, certainty, and the extent of perceived depth were higher than in the monocular condition. In the conflict conditions, accuracy, certainty, and the extent of perceived depth were lower than in the no-conflict condition, but the extent of perceived motion was larger. These results are discussed in terms of recent findings about the effectiveness of motion parallax as a cue for depth.
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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".