Actual and illusory differences in constant speed influence the perception of animacy similarly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to perceive objects as alive is the first step in social cognition. When the status of an object is ambiguous--if far away or fast moving--animacy is best perceived using motion cues. Previous studies have revealed that acceleration is a robust cue to animacy. The current study tests the prediction that, in the absence of acceleration, an object traveling at a relatively faster constant speed is more likely to be perceived as animate. Experiment 1 confirmed this hypothesis. Experiment 2 investigated the robustness of this finding by employing an illusory speed difference: Participants viewed dots moving at the same speed across apparently smaller and apparently larger central circles that were actually equally sized. Two thirds of participants perceived a dot traveling across an apparently larger circle to be faster or alive. Experiment 3 showed that participants' responses were not due to response bias. Together, these results suggest that our perceptions of animacy are influenced by constant speed differences, and that the perceptual association of speed and animacy is influenced by actual and illusory speed differences similarly.
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) | 0.000 | 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".