Is flicker-defined form (FDF) dependent on the contour?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flicker-defined form (FDF) is a temporally driven illusion within which randomly positioned background elements are flickered in counterphase to stimulus elements, creating the illusion of a contour in the region between the background and the stimulus dots. It has been proposed that FDF is dependent on the boundary region between the counterphase flickering dots. Is the stimulus area or the illusory contour itself (region between stimulus and background) paramount to the FDF percept? Circular stimuli were compared to ring stimuli to determine the relative importance of area and contour. The rings were tested in the following configurations: constant maximum diameter/variable area; constant area/variable contour; and constant contour/variable area. For rings with constant diameter, no effect of ring thickness was found. No effect of contour was found for rings of a constant area. For rings of constant contour, the smaller the area the greater the threshold. These results suggest a greater dependence on the area of a stimulus rather than its contour. Area dependence suggests that the theory of contour dependence by a fast extraction system is unlikely. This temporally defined magnocellular-dependent illusion is influenced by slow surface perception mechanisms of the parvocellular system.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".