Aftereffect of motion-in-depth based on binocular cues: Effects of adaptation duration, interocular correlation, and temporal correlation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are at least two possible binocular cues to motion-in-depth, namely disparity change over time and interocular velocity differences. There has been significant controversy about their relative contributions to the perception of motion-in-depth. In the present study, we used the technique of selective adaptation to address this question. In Experiment 1, we found that adaptation to motion-in-depth depicted by temporally correlated random-dot stereograms, which contained coherent interocular velocity difference, produced motion aftereffect in the depth direction irrespective of the adaptors' interocular correlation for any adaptation duration tested. This suggests that coherent changing disparity does not contribute to motion-in-depth adaptation. Because the aftereffect duration did not saturate in the tested range of adaptation duration, it is unlikely that the lack of the effect of changing disparity was due to a ceiling effect. In Experiment 2, we used a novel adaptor that contained a unidirectional coherent interocular velocity difference signal and a bidirectional changing disparity signal that should not induce a motion aftereffect in depth. Following the adaptation, motion aftereffect in depth occurred in the opposite direction to the adaptor's motion-in-depth based on interocular velocity difference. Experiment 3 demonstrated that these results generalized in 12 untrained subjects. These experiments suggest that the contribution of interocular velocity difference to the perception of motion-in-depth is substantial, while that of changing disparity is very limited (if any), at least at the stages of direction-selective mechanisms subject to an aftereffect phenomenon.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 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".