MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2080989141 · doi:10.1167/5.8.55

The Pinna -Brelstaff Illusion is not optimal under self-motion conditions

2010· article· en· W2080989141 on OpenAlexaff
Rick Gurnsey, G. Page

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIllusionStimulus (psychology)Salience (neuroscience)PerceptionOptical illusionPinnaPsychologyMotion perceptionConcentricCommunicationComputer visionMathematicsCognitive psychologyGeometryComputer scienceAnatomyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The Pinna-Brelstaff illusion (Pinna & Brelstaff, 2000, Vision Research) consists of two concentric rings of micropatterns that appear to counter-rotate when the observer moves towards and away from the image. There have been several anecdotal reports that the illusion is stronger when the retinal motion (expansion and contraction of the stimulus) is produced by self-motion rather than by expansion and contraction of the stimulus on the computer screen. Method: Our displays consisted of two concentric rings of Gabor patches. Each micropattern was oriented ±? degrees from the line that connects it to the centre of the display (Gurnsey et al., 2002, Perception). Nine displays were created with θ ranging from 0 to 90 degrees. Subjects first made relative salience judgements (for all possible pairs of θ) under both self-motion and screen-motion conditions. Subjects then judged which of two identical retinal motions—one produced under conditions of screen motion and another under conditions of self motion—produced the stronger illusion. Results: The relative salience judgements made under conditions of screen- and self-motion produced identical dependence on θ, with peak salience occurring at approximately θ = 31. For all values of θ screen motion produced the more salient illusion and in several cases the difference was statistically different from chance. Conclusions: Contrary to anecdotal reports the Pinna-Brelstaff illusion is not strongest under conditions of self-motion; if anything, the opposite is true. Therefore, there is no need to consider a role for extraretinal inputs in determining the strength of the illusion. It should be noted however that the percepts differ under conditions of self motion and screen motion. Under conditions of self motion there is size constancy but not under conditions of screen motion. Nevertheless, the extra retinal contributions leading to size constancy do not affect the strength of the illusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→