MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Object Updating and the Flash-Lag Effect

2004· article· en· W2158866455 on OpenAlexaff
Cathleen M. Moore, James T. Enns

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIllusionObject (grammar)PerceptionComputer visionOptical illusionFlash (photography)PsychologyFeature (linguistics)Representation (politics)Artificial intelligenceCorollaryLagMotion (physics)Motion perceptionPath (computing)Cognitive psychologyCommunicationComputer scienceMathematicsOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flash lag is a misperception of spatial relations between a moving object and a briefly flashed stationary one. This study began with the observation that the illusion occurs when the moving object continues following the flash, but is eliminated if the object's motion path ends with the flash. The data show that disrupting the continuity of the moving object, via a transient change in size or color, also eliminates the illusion. We propose that this is because a large feature change leads to the formation of a second object representation. Direct evidence for this proposal is provided by the results for a corollary perceptual feature of the disruption in object continuity: the perception of two objects, rather than only one, on the motion path.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations79
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ScienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207