The “Spinner” Illusion: More Dots, More Speed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The perceived speed of a ring of equally spaced dots moving around a circular path appears faster as the number of dots increases (Ho & Anstis, 2013, Best Illusion of the Year contest). We measured this "spinner" effect with radial sinusoidal gratings, using a 2AFC procedure where participants selected the faster one between two briefly presented gratings of different spatial frequencies (SFs) rotating at various angular speeds. Compared with the reference stimulus with 4 c/rev (0.64 c/rad), participants consistently overestimated the angular speed for test stimuli of higher radial SFs but underestimated that for a test stimulus of lower radial SFs. The spinner effect increased in magnitude but saturated rapidly as the test radial SF increased. Similar effects were observed with translating linear sinusoidal gratings of different SFs. Our results support the idea that human speed perception is biased by temporal frequency, which physically goes up as SF increases when the speed is held constant. Hence, the more dots or lines, the greater the perceived speed when they are moving coherently in a defined area.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".