Bibliographic record
Abstract
The unresolved questions relating to binocular processing of motion include: Is the perceived speed of the motion in depth (MID) of an approaching object inversely proportional to the time to collision?; What visual information supports judgements of the direction of MID?; What is the relation between binocular and monocular processing in the perception of MID? We review whether the perception of stereomotion in depth of a monocularly visible object is caused entirely by a rate of change of disparity, and conclude that the difference between the horizontal velocities of the object's left and right retinal images makes at most only a small contribution to speed discrimination, but conclusions may be different for detection, perceived speed and directional discrimination. We review laboratory evidence on the relative importance of binocular and monocular information for interceptive action and collision avoidance and conclude that, in addition to the effect of considerable intersubject variability, the relative importance depends on the physical size of the approaching object, its distance and, if nonspherical, its direction of motion and whether it is rotating. We compare attempts to find whether the human visual system contains a mechanism specialized for the speed of cyclopean motion within a frontoparallel plane, and find the question ill-posed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".