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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".