Vergence modulation as a cue to movement in depth
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
It is known that the vergence state of the eyes can serve as a cue to distance. However, it has been claimed that changes in vergence induced by modulations of the binocular disparity of a random-dot display do not create a sensation of motion in depth. The present experiment tests the hypothesis that modulation of binocular disparity in a random-dot display does not create a sensation of motion in depth because, in such a display, looming of the image that normally accompanies motion in depth is absent. The image of a radial pattern remains self-similar when it moves in depth, so the absence of looming in such an image should not inhibit the effects of modulation of disparity. Subjects tracked with unseen hand the perceived motion in depth created by modulations of the disparity of a display of random spots, a single spot, and a radial pattern. As previously reported, the random-spot display produced almost no motion in depth. However, the single spot and the radial pattern produced motion in depth. It is concluded that modulations of vergence and/or of absolute disparity can create a sensation of motion in depth when the effects of looming are weakened or removed. However, strong sensations of motion in depth of isolated objects require the presence of looming.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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