Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crowding is a form of lateral interaction in which flanking items interfere with the detection or discrimination of a target stimulus. It is believed that crowding is a property of peripheral vision only and that no crowding occurs at fixation. If these two claims are true, then there must be a change in the nature of crowding interactions across the visual field. In three different tasks, we determined target size and flanker separation at threshold for eccentricities of 0 to 16° in the lower visual field for 7 relative separations (1.25 to 8 times target size). In all three tasks, the magnitude of crowding increases with eccentricity; there was no crowding at fixation and extreme crowding at 16°. Using a novel double-scaling procedure, we show that the non-foveal data in all three tasks can be characterized as shifted versions of the same psychometric function such that different sections of the function characterize data at each eccentricity. This pattern of results can be understood in terms of size-dependent responses to the target and distance-dependent interference from the flankers. The data suggest that the distance-dependent interference increases with eccentricity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".