Visual processing of the impending collision of a looming object: Time to collision revisited
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
As an object approaches an observer's eye, the optical variable tau, defined as the inverse relative expansion rate of the object's image on the retina (D. N. Lee, 1976), approximates the time to collision (TTC). Many studies have provided support that human observers use TTC, but evidence for the exclusive use of TTC generated by tau remains inconclusive. In the present study, observers were presented with a visual display of two sequentially approaching objects and asked to compare their TTCs at the moment these objects vanished. Upon dissociating several variables that may have potentially contributed to TTC perception, we found that observers were most sensitive to TTC information when completing the task and less sensitive to non-time variables, such as those that specified distance to collision, speed, and object size. Moreover, when we manipulated presented variables to provide conflicting TTC information, TTC specified by tau was weighted much more than TTC derived from distance and speed. In conclusion, our results suggested that even in the presence of other monocular sources of information, observers still had a greater tendency to specifically use optical tau when making relative TTC judgments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it