MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889439510 · doi:10.1177/0301006618796719

Effect of Visual Attention on Binocular Fusion Limits

2018· article· en· W2889439510 on OpenAlexaff
Ken Kihara, Hiroshi Ono

Bibliographic record

VenuePerception · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsCued speechPsychologyContrast (vision)Binocular disparityBinocular visionCognitive psychologyVisual attentionFusionLine (geometry)PerceptionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNeuroscienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the effect of visual attention on binocular fusion limits by using Posner's spatial cueing paradigm that entails cued shifts of attentional focus. Results showed that attention decreases the fusion limit. Observers perceived diplopia of a binocular line within +/-26.5 arcmin disparity (+/- correspond to uncrossed and crossed, respectively) more frequently when it was oriented to the line than when cued attention was directed elsewhere. We discuss the results in terms of attention increasing spatial resolution and contrast sensitivity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207