The relative contributions of radial and laminar optic flow to the perception of linear self-motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When illusory self-motion is induced in a stationary observer by optic flow, the perceived distance traveled is generally overestimated relative to the distance of a remembered target (Redlick, Harris, & Jenkin, 2001): subjects feel they have gone further than the simulated distance and indicate that they have arrived at a target's previously seen location too early. In this article we assess how the radial and laminar components of translational optic flow contribute to the perceived distance traveled. Subjects monocularly viewed a target presented in a virtual hallway wallpapered with stripes that periodically changed color to prevent tracking. The target was then extinguished and the visible area of the hallway shrunk to an oval region 40° (h) × 24° (v). Subjects either continued to look centrally or shifted their gaze eccentrically, thus varying the relative amounts of radial and laminar flow visible. They were then presented with visual motion compatible with moving down the hallway toward the target and pressed a button when they perceived that they had reached the target's remembered position. Data were modeled by the output of a leaky spatial integrator (Lappe, Jenkin, & Harris, 2007). The sensory gain varied systematically with viewing eccentricity while the leak constant was independent of viewing eccentricity. Results were modeled as the linear sum of separate mechanisms sensitive to radial and laminar optic flow. Results are compatible with independent channels for processing the radial and laminar flow components of optic flow that add linearly to produce large but predictable errors in perceived distance traveled.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".