MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058312597 · doi:10.1037/a0016466

Object trimming: When masking dots alter rather than replace target representations.

2010· article· en· W2058312597 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Todd A. Kahan, James T. Enns

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBates College
KeywordsTrimmingMasking (illustration)Backward maskingObject (grammar)Visual maskingRepresentation (politics)Priming (agriculture)Computer sciencePerceptionArtificial intelligenceComputer visionRepetition primingPsychologyVisual perceptionCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Five experiments demonstrate that when dots appear beside a briefly presented target object, and persist on view longer than the target, the flanked object is perceptually altered by the dots. Three methods are used to explore this object trimming effect. Experiments 1-3 assess participants' conscious reports of trimmed digits, Experiment 4 uses repetition priming to explore the target representation, and Experiment 5 examines the perception of apparent motion in trimmed targets. Results of all three methods indicate that object trimming is influenced by mechanisms of perceptual grouping that operate on target representations prior to conscious access. Separate contributions from visual crowding and backward masking are also identified. These results imply that common-onset masking does not always result from the target being substituted by the mask, but that target and mask can sometimes maintain separate mental representations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & PerformanceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207