Reconciling Competing Accounts of Picture Perception from Art Theory and Perceptual Psychology via the Dual Route Hypothesis.
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
Reconciling Competing Accounts of Picture Perception from Art Theory and Perceptual Psychology via the Dual Route Hypothesis Coppin Peter The University of Toronto Abstract: The fine and applied visual arts and perceptual psychology use conflicting accounts of picture perception. In the arts, the human ability to perceive pictured objects is characterized as learned, or conventionalized, like a ”visual language” (Gombrich, 1960; Goodman, 1976; Kulvicki, 2010). In perceptual psychology, picture perception is characterized as an unlearned, biologically grounded, ability. In this account, optical properties of light produced by pictures make use of biologically evolved capabilities to perceive surfaces and edges in actual environments (J. J. Gibson, 1978; Kennedy, 1974; Lee et al., 1980; Hammad et al., 2008). The purpose of this paper is to reconcile these competing claims through Goodale et al.’s (2005) dual route hypothesis. It includes a role for learning and memory in visual processing via the ventrally located ”what/how” stream, in addition to a role for visual processes that rely less on memory and learning, via the dorsally located ”what” stream.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 it