Intact Dynamic Visual Capture in People With One Eye
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
Observing motion in one modality can influence the perceived direction of motion in a second modality (dynamic capture). For example observing a square moving in depth can influence the perception of a sound to increase in loudness. The current study investigates whether people who have lost one eye are susceptible to audiovisual dynamic capture in the depth plane similar to binocular and eye-patched viewing control participants. Partial deprivation of the visual system from the loss of one eye early in life results in changes in the remaining intact senses such as hearing. Linearly expanding or contracting discs were paired with increasing or decreasing tones and participants were asked to indicate the direction of the auditory stimulus. Magnitude of dynamic visual capture was measured in people with one eye compared to eye-patched and binocular viewing controls. People with one eye have the same susceptibility to dynamic visual capture as controls, where they perceived the direction of the auditory signal to be moving in the direction of the incongruent visual signal, despite previously showing a lack of visual dominance for audiovisual cues. This behaviour may be the result of directing attention to the visual modality, their partially deficient sense, in order to gain important information about approaching and receding stimuli which in the former case could be life-threatening. These results contribute to the growing body of research showing that people with one eye display unique accommodations with respect to audiovisual processing that are likely adaptive in each unique sensory situation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.008 |
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