Binocular rivalry in half-occluded region is weakened by eye movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the effect of eye movement on suppression of binocular rivalry in the half-occluded region, which is the monocular region made by occlusion, the amount of binocular rivalry in the half-occluded region was measured in the eye movement condition and the fixating condition. In the eye movement condition, the observer moved their eyes between the occluder and the occluded object. In the fixating condition, the observers fixated the occluder (the fixating-the-occluder condition) or the occluded object (the fixating-the-occluded-object condition). Following facts were found: (a) the amount of binocular rivalry in the half-occluded region reduced more in the eye movement condition than in the two fixating conditions, (b) there was no significant difference in the amount of binocular rivalry in the half-occluded region between the two fixating conditions. These results suggested that eye movement is one of the factors to suppress binocular rivalry in the half-occluded region in natural viewing situations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".