Perceived Depth in the ‘Sieve Effect’ and Exclusive Binocular Rivalry
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
An impression of a surface seen through holes is created when one fuses dichoptic pairs of discs, with one member of each pair black and the other member white. This is referred to as the 'sieve effect'. The stimulus contains no positional disparities. Howard (1995, Perception 24 67-74) noted qualitatively that the sieve effect occurs when the rivalrous regions are within the range of sizes, contrasts, and relative sizes where exclusive rivalry occurs, rather than binocular lustre, stimulus combination, or dominant rivalry. This suggests that perceived depth in the sieve effect should be at a maximum when exclusive rivalry is most prominent. We used a disparity depth probe to measure the magnitude of perceived depth in the sieve effect as a function of the sizes, contrasts, and relative sizes of the rivalrous regions. We also measured the rate of exclusive rivalry of the same stimuli under the same conditions. Perceived depth and the rate of exclusive rivalry were affected in the same way by each of the three variables. Furthermore, perceived depth and the rate of exclusive rivalry were affected in the same way by changes in vergence angle, although the configuration of the stimulus surface was held constant. These findings confirm the hypothesis that the sieve effect is correlated with the incidence of exclusive rivalry.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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