Time-To-Contact Estimates for Observer versus Target Motion
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
The ratio (τ) of a moving target's angular size to the rate of change in its angular size can be used by observers to judge the time remaining before they will collide with the target. We consider here whether optical flow information, consistent with simulated observer motion, affects observers' estimates of time-to-contact (TTC). Estimates of TTC were obtained when either the observer approached a stationary target or the target approached a stationary observer. The visual information for τ was the same in both conditions, whereas the visual information for observer self-motion was varied. For the low closing velocities, (3 and 6 eyeheights/sec) there was no significant difference in the estimated TTC for observer motion versus target motion. However, there was a significant difference for the highest closing velocity (12 eyeheights/sec). This result suggests that visual information, specifying self-motion, may be used either in combination with or in place of τ to estimate TTC during simulated locomotion. The present findings have practical implications for both the use of τ in judging TTC and the rendering of terrain texture detail in high-fidelity flight simulators.
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 | 0.000 | 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