Audiovisual Competition in the Line Motion Illusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Line Motion Illusion is characterised as illusory perception of a solid line appearing to grow away from a preceding visual or auditory cue. This illusion is attributed to the widening of spatial attention after attention has been narrowly captured to the cue's location. Although this illusion has been found using either visual or auditory cues (Shimojo, Miyauchi, & Hikosaka, 1997), it has yet to be examined under different crossmodal conditions where cues from different modalities may either enhance or compete in capturing attention when cues are spatially congruent or incongruent. Subjects' perception of the illusion was assessed under spatially congruent and incongruent crossmodal conditions using auditory and visual cues. In the congruent condition, the auditory cue (a short tone) and the visual cue (a flash) were both presented on the same side of the display (either left or right). In the incongruent condition, the cues were presented simultaneously on opposite sides. These crossmodal conditions were compared to unimodal conditions of only visual or auditory cues. We also manipulated the time interval between the presentation of cues and bar to assess the extent to which the illusion depended on the timing of the cues. Eye position was monitored via an SMI RED eye tracker to ensure they maintained fixation. Overall results show similarly high rates of reporting the illusion across all conditions (73-90%). However, in the incongruent crossmodal condition subjects reported the illusory motion from visual cues significantly more than the auditory cues. We also found the illusion depended on the relative timing between the cues and the bar. Our findings provide new insights into the extent to which visual and auditory cues compete in the putative capture of attention to produce the line motion illusion. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2018
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".