Judgments of synchrony between auditory and moving or still visual stimuli.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flash-lag effect is a visual illusion wherein intermittently flashed, stationary stimuli seem to trail after a moving visual stimulus despite being flashed synchronously. We tested hypotheses that the flash-lag effect is due to spatial extrapolation, shortened perceptual lags, or accelerated acquisition of moving stimuli, all of which call for an earlier awareness of moving visual stimuli over stationary ones. Participants judged synchrony of a click either to a stationary flash of light or to a series of adjacent flashes that seemingly bounced off or bumped into the edge of the visual display. To be judged synchronous with a stationary flash, audio clicks had to be presented earlier--not later--than clicks that went with events, like a simulated bounce (Experiment 1) or crash (Experiments 2-4), of a moving visual target. Click synchrony to the initial appearance of a moving stimulus was no different than to a flash, but clicks had to be delayed by 30-40 ms to seem synchronous with the final (crash) positions (Experiment 2). The temporal difference was constant over a wide range of motion velocity (Experiment 3). Interrupting the apparent motion by omitting two illumination positions before the last one did not alter subjective synchrony, nor did their occlusion, so the shift in subjective synchrony seems not to be due to brightness contrast (Experiment 4). Click synchrony to the offset of a long duration stationary illumination was also delayed relative to its onset (Experiment 5). Visual stimuli in motion enter awareness no sooner than do stationary flashes, so motion extrapolation, latency difference, and motion acceleration cannot explain the flash-lag effect.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".