The lost direction in binocular vision: The neglected signs posted by Wells, Towne, and Leconte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of vision have informed theories first in philosophy and then in psychology. Over the centuries, an increasing number of phenomena have been enlisted to refute or reinforce particular theories. Nowhere has this been more evident than in binocular vision. How we see a single world with two eyes is one of the oldest and most consistently studied topics in vision research. It has been discussed at least since the time of Aristotle and it has been examined experimentally since the second century, when Ptolemy defined lines of visual correspondence for the two eyes. Prior to Wheatstone's invention of the stereoscope in the 1830s, binocular vision had been studied in terms of visual directions. The stereoscope established distance (or depth) as well as direction as dimensions of binocular vision. Subsequently, depth rather than direction has been the principal concern of students of vision, and texts in English devoted to analyses of direction rather than depth have been neglected. We examine the experiments on binocular visual direction conducted by Wells before Wheatstone, and by Towne and LeConte after him, and discuss the reasons for their neglect.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".