MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091940873 · doi:10.1068/p5326

Kanizsa's Shrinkage Illusion Produced by a Misapplied 3-D Corrective Mechanism

2005· article· en· W2091940873 on OpenAlexaff
Esther G. González, Hiroshi Ono, Elaine Lam, Martin J. Steinbach

Bibliographic record

VenuePerception · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenToronto Western HospitalYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIllusionShrinkageMechanism (biology)PsychologyCognitive psychologyGeologyPhilosophyMaterials scienceEpistemologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to include the monocular areas from the left and the right eye in the cyclopean view, the visual system displaces the occluded elements which would result in a horizontal elongation of the shape but does not occur thanks to a correction mechanism which preserves the shape. We hypothesised that this mechanism causes Kanizsa's amodal shrinkage illusion (the apparent elongation of a partially occluded square) when it is incorrectly applied by the visual system to a two-dimensional stimulus. Four experiments tested this hypothesis: (i) one-eyed observers were less susceptible to the illusion than people with normal binocular vision because, for them, the correction for shape is unnecessary; (ii) the illusion was stronger with binocular than with monocular vision since binocularity induces the visual system to correct for the shape distortion; (iii) the illusion diminished when the stimulus was rotated 90 degrees given that displacement and compression are not required for vertical occlusion; (iv) the magnitude of the illusion was a function of the width of the occluder because, as previous research has shown, the edges of a partially occluded square are less displaced the farther they are from the edges of the occluder. The data from the four experiments support our hypothesis even though no condition was able to eliminate the illusion; other possible causes are discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptionSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207