What does the Ternus Display Tell us about Motion Processing in Human Vision?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ternus display is a moving visual stimulus which elicits two very different percepts, according to the length of the interstimulus interval (ISI) between each frame of the motion sequence. These two percepts, referred to as element motion and group motion, have previously been analysed in terms of the operation of a low-level, dedicated short-range motion process (in the case of element motion), and of a higher-level, attentional long-range motion process (in the case of group motion). We used a novel Ternus configuration to show that both element and group motion are, in fact, mediated solely by a process sensitive to changes in the spatial appearance of the Ternus elements. In light of this, it appears that Ternus displays tell us nothing about low-level motion processing, implying that previous studies using Ternus displays, for instance those dealing with dyslexia, require reinterpretation. Further manipulations of the Ternus display revealed that the orientation and spatial-frequency discrimination of the process underlying the analysis of Ternus displays is far worse than thresholds for spatial vision. We conclude that Ternus displays are analysed via a long-range motion, or feature-tracking, process, and that this process is distinct from spatial vision.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it