MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004424237 · doi:10.1167/8.6.911

The local inversion effect in biological motion perception is acceleration-based

2010· article· en· W2004424237 on OpenAlexaff
Dorita H. F. Chang, Nikolaus F. Troje

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological motionOrientation (vector space)Inversion (geology)PerceptionTreadmillGait cycleArtificial intelligenceFoot (prosody)Computer visionMotion perceptionPhysicsGeodesyCommunicationMathematicsMotion (physics)Computer scienceGeometryPsychologyGeologyBiologyKinematicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to discriminate direction from spatially scrambled point-light displays relies on the orientation of the foot dot motions (Troje & Westhoff, 2006). We present two experiments that investigated this local motion-based inversion effect by testing direction discrimination from novel biological motion displays that exaggerate and display solely foot-specific information. In Experiment 1, we isolated the foot motion of a treadmill human walker, human runner, cat, and pigeon and presented observers (n = 20) with 1000 ms displays consisting of 10 copies of two foot dots that traced 150 ms segments at counterphase positions of the gait cycle. For each foot type, we derived left and right signalling displays from five such segment pairs that collectively sampled the entire gait cycle and presented them at both upright and inverted orientations. Direction discrimination accuracies varied with foot type, orientation, and segment pair. Significantly, the decrease in accuracies due to inversion was most substantial for the runner stimuli which exhibit the most pronounced vertical velocity changes and smallest for the cat stimuli which carry little vertical motion. In Experiment 2, a new group of observers (n = 20) were presented with the natural human walker stimuli of Experiment 1 and with stimuli that were spatiotemporally-matched to the natural stimuli but moved with constant velocities. Here, overall discrimination accuracies did not differ per foot type, decreased with inversion, and varied with segment pair. Critically, performances were higher for upright than for inverted displays for the natural stimuli only. Upright and inverted versions of the constant velocity stimuli did not differ. The results suggest that the local inversion effect in biological motion perception is carried by the velocity gradients of the foot motions. We conjecture that the visual system is sensitive to characteristic velocity changes exhibited by biological movements in a gravity-driven environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207