Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the phenomenon of blindsight, people can exhibit above-chance performance in responding to visual stimuli, which indicates there is a possible dissociation between visual awareness and performance. Moreover, it is possible that observers tend to degrade their awareness threshold while they are under-confident due to the inability of perceiving targets clearly. In Experiment 1 (n = 3), we presented observers with drifting plaids composed of two superimposed gratings whose direction differed by 180°, the orientation of which was varied by 10, 20, 30, and 45°. Perceptual responses (i.e., perceived component or pattern motion) and eye movement (EM) patterns were recorded under binocular- and dichoptic-viewing conditions. In Experiment 2 (n = 3), we used only dichoptic viewing and utilized binocular switch suppression technique (i.e., repeatedly switching conflicting images between the eyes) to render drifting gratings temporarily invisible. Furthermore, the contrast level of drift gratings was varied. Perceptual responses and EM patterns were recorded. Observers had to indicate their visual experience categorically (i.e., clear image, almost clear image, weak glimpse, or not seen) at the end of each trial. During binocular viewing, observers’ perceptual responses were consistent with their EMs. Under the dichoptic-viewing condition, observers perceived component motion frequently. There was no clear dissociation between perceptual responses and EMs. However, the optokinetic nystagmus rate (OKN) increased during dichoptic viewing. In Experiment 2, EMs were dissociable from observers’ perceptual responses even when they reported no awareness of moving gratings. Moreover, observers reported visual experience as being graded rather than "all-or-none". Our findings indicate observers’ visual awareness and performance can be dissociated, and they tend to underestimate their visual capacity when conditions are difficult. Understanding how the visual system operates with or without visual awareness by using different psychophysical manipulations will allow us to use measurable techniques to trace the fingerprints of the neuronal correlates of consciousness. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; 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".