The Effect of Stimulus Size on Stereoscopic Fusion Limits and Response Criteria
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 stereoscopic fusion limit denotes the largest binocular disparity for which a single fused image is perceived. Several criteria can be employed when judging whether or not a stereoscopic display is fused, and this may be a factor contributing to a discrepancy in the literature. Schor, Wood, and Ogawa (1984 Vision Research, 24, 661-665) reported that fusion limits did not change as a function of bar width, while Roumes, Plantier, Menu, and Thorpe (1997 Human Factors, 39, 359-373) reported higher fusion limits for larger stimuli than for smaller stimuli. Our investigation suggests that differing criteria between the studies could contribute to this discrepancy. In experiment 1 we measured horizontal and vertical disparity fusion limits for thin bars and for the edge of an extended surface, allowing observers to use the criterion of either diplopia or rivalry when evaluating fusion for all stimuli. Fusion limits were equal for thin bars and extended surfaces in both horizontal and vertical disparity conditions. We next measured fusion limits for a range of bar widths and instructed observers to indicate which criterion they employed on each trial. Fusion limits were constant across all stimulus widths. However, there was a sharp change in criterion from diplopia to rivalry when the angular extent of the bar width exceeded about twice the fusion limit, expressed in angular terms. We conclude that stereoscopic fusion limits do not depend on stimulus size in this context, but the criterion for fusion does. Therefore, the criterion for fusion should be clearly defined in any study measuring stereoscopic fusion limits.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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