Co-operative interactions between first- and second-order mechanisms in the processing of structure from motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structure from motion (SFM) is the ability to perceive three-dimensional structure from stimuli containing only two-dimensional motion signals and this ability seems to be a result of high-level cortical processes. It has long been thought that local motion signals defined by second-order cues only weakly contribute to perception of SFM since performance on purely second-order SFM tasks is poor, relative to first-order stimuli. We hypothesized that the mechanisms responsible for deriving SFM were insensitive to low-level stimulus attributes such as the first- or second-order nature of the dots composing the stimulus, in other words: that they were "cue-invariant", but that large differences in sensitivity to local first- and second-order motions were responsible for previous findings. By manipulating the relative strength of first-order dots in an SFM stimulus that combines first- and second-order dots, we show that the two types of motion can separately support SFM and co-operatively interact to produce vivid three-dimensional percepts. This provides strong support that the mechanisms underlying SFM are cue-invariant.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".