The Fluttering-Heart Illusion: A New Hypothesis
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
The fluttering-heart illusion is a perceived lagging behind of a colour target on a background of a different colour when the two are oscillated together. It has been proposed that the illusion is caused by a differential in the perceptual latencies of different colours (Helmholtz 1867/1962), a differential in rod-cone latencies (von Kries 1896) and rod-cone interactions (von Grünau 1975, 1976 Vision Research 15 431-436, 437-440; 16 397-401; see list of references there). The purpose of this experiment was to assess the hypothesis that the fluttering-heart illusion is caused by a differential in the perceived velocities of chromatic and achromatic motion. To evaluate this hypothesis, we tested observers possessing normal colour vision and deuteranopes. The perceived delay of a chromatic target relative to an achromatic target was measured as a function of background cone contrast and target colour. For observers with normal colour vision, the perceived delay of the chromatic target is greater in the L-S than the L-M testing conditions. The reverse is observed in deuteranope observers. We suggest that this is caused by the absence of an L-M opponent mechanism contributing to chromatic motion in deuteranopes. Greater background cone contrasts tended to yield smaller perceived delays in both normal and deuteranope observers, indicating that greater chromatic modulation decreases the perceived delay of the colour target. These results support the hypothesis that the fluttering-heart illusion can be explained by a differential in the perceived velocities of chromatic and achromatic motion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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