Convergent flash localization near saccades without equivalent "compression" of perceived separation
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
Visual space is sometimes said to be "compressed" before saccadic eye movements. The most central evidence for this hypothesis is a converging pattern of localization errors on single flashes presented close to saccade time under certain conditions. An intuitive version of the compression hypothesis predicts that the reported distance between simultaneous, spatially separated presaccadic flashes should contract in the same way as their individual locations. In our experiment we tested this prediction by having subjects perform one of two tasks on stimuli made up of two bars simultaneously flashed near saccade time: either localizing one of the bars or judging the separation between the two. Localization judgments showed the previously observed converging pattern over the 50-100 ms before saccades. Contractions in perceived separation between the two bars were not accurately predicted by this pattern: they occurred mainly during saccades and were much weaker than convergence in localization. Different forms of spatial information about flashed stimuli can be differentially modulated before, during, and after saccades. Structural alterations in the perceptual field around saccades may explain these different effects, but alternative hypotheses based on decision making under uncertainty and on the influence of other perisaccadic mechanisms are also consistent with this and other evidence.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it