Off on the Wrong Foot: Local Features in Biological Motion
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
Biological-motion perception consists of a number of different phenomena. They include global mechanisms that support the retrieval of the coherent shape of a walker, but also mechanisms which derive information from the local motion of its parts about facing direction and animacy, independent of the particular shape of the display. A large body of the literature on biological-motion perception is based on a synthetic stimulus generated by an algorithm published by James Cutting in 1978 (Perception 7 393-405). Here we show that this particular stimulus lacks a visual invariant inherent to the local motion of the feet of a natural walker, which in more realistic motion patterns indicates the facing direction of a walker independent of its shape. Comparing Cutting's walker to a walker derived from motion-captured data of real human walkers, we find no difference between the two displays in a detection task designed such that observers had to rely on global shape. In a direction discrimination task, however, in which only local motion was accessible to the observer, performance on Cutting's walker was at chance, while direction could still be retrieved from the stimuli derived from the real walker.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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