Binocular rivalry between spiral stimuli and linear motion in human observers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Binocular rivalry describes the alternating perception of two competing monocular images. It is hypothesized to arise at multiple levels of the visual pathway due to competitions between neuronal populations that represent the displayed images (Freeman, 2005; Wilson, 2003). From our previous findings, we concluded that the stronger represented expanding motion in area MSTd caused a bias for expansion when presented against contraction (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test, Left Eye (LE):p=0.0156; Right Eye (RE):p=0.0781) and rotation stimuli (LE:p=0.02345; RE:p=0.02345). Moreover periods were significantly longer for competing spiral stimuli than for our control—rivaling linear motions in the cardinal directions (LE:p=0.0000376, RE:p=0.00000423), even though the latter are more strongly represented in MT and MSTd (Tanaka et al, 1986). We conducted two additional experiments on twelve human observers. The first measured the rivalry periods for combinations of expanding, contracting, or rotating random dot patterns (RDPs) against linear motion RDPs. The RDPs were matched for contrast and speed and were displayed through a mirror stereoscope. We found that a) the bias for expansion ceased and the dominance durations among spiral stimuli were no longer significantly different (LE & RE:p>0.1) and b) spiral stimuli continued to have significantly greater rivalry periods than linear motion stimuli (LE:p=0.000142; RE:p=0.00000553), however the linear stimuli were perceived for longer periods than in our initial experiment (p=0.0078). In the second experiment we compared the rivalry periods for combinations of expanding and contracting RDPs with and without the gradient. In general, stimuli with speed gradients dominated over those without. Moreover, the bias for expansion over contraction was maintained (LE:p=0.0095; RE:p=0.00805). Our results support that motion binocular rivalry takes place at various levels of the visual pathway and it is influenced foremost by the types of stimuli rivaling and by the bias in neuronal representations of those stimuli. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".