Cognitive models modulate action-perception coupling in perceptual multistability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theories like "common coding" suggest joint representations of action and perception, which implies a bidirectional coupling between these domains. Effects of perception on action are self-evident. Evidence for direct effects of action on perception arises from perceptual bistability: congruent movements stabilize the interpretation of an ambiguous stimulus. Can cognitive processes affect such action-to-perception transfer? Observers viewed a structure-from-motion cylinder of ambiguous motion direction. Prior to the ambiguous stimulus, we presented unambiguous versions that suggest a mechanical model on how the cylinder connects to a rod; in the "belt-drive" condition the rod rotated in the same direction as the cylinder, in the "gear-drive" condition in the opposing direction. Observers rotated a manipulandum either the same way as the rod (congruent instruction) or in the opposing way (incongruent instruction). In the "belt-drive" condition, the congruent instruction translates to congruency between perception and manual rotation. In the "gear-drive" condition, the congruent instruction translates to *in*congruency between perception and action. If the action-to-perception transfer is not influenced by the internal model of the underlying mechanics, we would find that congruent movement stabilizes the percept in both conditions. If, however, the effect depends upon cognitive assumptions, we would find a more stable percept with incongruent movement in the "gear-drive" condition. Results showed a significant interaction between the trained mechanical model and the action-to-perception transfer. While the congruency-effect was present in the "belt-drive" condition, no difference in either direction was found following the "gear-drive" training. This suggests that perceptual and cognitive congruency effects nullify each other. Hence, the observers' internal model of a machine's operation influences action-to-perception transfer. 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".