MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058689580 · doi:10.1068/p5771

Interocular Transfer of a Rotational Motion Aftereffect as a Function of Eccentricity

2008· article· en· W2058689580 on OpenAlexaff
Philip M. Grove, Hiroshi Ashida, Hirohiko Kaneko, Hiroshi Ono

Bibliographic record

VenuePerception · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonocularStimulus (psychology)OpticsPsychologyPhysicsBinocular visionVisual cortexVisual fieldMonocular visionPsychophysicsAudiologyNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyPerceptionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In previous psychophysical investigations it has been reported that the angular extent over which the human visual field is served by binocular neurons in the visual cortex is limited to the central 40 degrees. However, these reports have been primarily based on data collected with static stimuli. Here we extend this investigation to include dynamic stimuli. Interocular transfer of the rotary motion aftereffect (rMAE) was measured for three stimulus diameters: 5, 30, and 62 deg. Interocular transfer, expressed as a percentage of monocular adapt/test rMAE duration was significantly reduced for stimulus diameter of 62 deg relative to 30 and 5 deg diameters. Nevertheless, interocular transfer durations still comprised a significant percentage of same-eye adapt/test durations (46.9%), comparable to previous reports of transfer MAE durations in near-central vision. The spatial extent of binocular interaction is likely stimulus specific and is still appreciable in the far periphery for complex-motion stimuli.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207