A binocular context exerts a similar influence on both binocular rivalry and ambiguous figure perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Images that resist binocular fusion undergo alternating periods of dominance and suppression, similar to ambiguous figures, whose percepts alternate between different interpretations. It has been well documented that a binocularly rivalrous target that forms part of a global form in the same eye tends to become perceptually dominant. This parallels similar effects of spatial context in ambiguous figure perception. Here we examine whether binocular rivalry exhibits perceptual binding properties to a binocular spatial context that parallels the effects shown by us at VSS last year for ambiguous figures (Ouhnana & Kingdom, 2015 JOV, 15.12, 842). Method: Observers indicated via key-press the perceived motion direction of a skeleton cube rotating in opposite directions in the two eyes, or of a rotating ambiguous Necker cube cube, with both types of stimuli presented above or below a fixation dot. A rotating unambiguous context skeleton cube was presented the other side of fixation. The rotation direction of the context figure was randomly changed during each 30s trial. The data was subject to a form of reverse correlation analysis that established the correlation between the motion reversals of the context and that of the target figures. Results: The perceived changes in motion direction of both the rivalrous- and ambiguous-target figures were found to be dependent on the motion of the spatial context. Both correlations and coherent percept predominance of context and target were found to be significantly higher than would be expected if these two were independent. Conclusion: Perceptual binding of both rivalrous and ambiguous figures to a spatial context appear to be mediated by a similar shared rivalry/ambiguity process. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".