Detection of the stroboscopic effect by young adults varying in sensitivity
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
The advent of LED lighting has renewed concern about the possible visual, neurobiological, and performance and cognition effects of cyclic variations in lighting system luminous flux (temporal light modulation). The stroboscopic visibility measure (SVM) characterises the temporal light modulation signal to predict the visibility of the stroboscopic effect, one of the visual perception effects of temporal light modulation. A SVM of 1 means that the average person would detect the phenomenon 50% of the time. There is little published data describing the population sensitivity to the stroboscopic effect in relation to the SVM, and none focusing on people subject to visual stress. This experiment, conducted in parallel in Canada and France, examined stroboscopic detection for horizontal and vertical moving targets when viewed under commercially available lamps varying in SVM conditions (SVM: ∼0; ∼0.4; ∼0.9; ∼1.4; ∼3.0). As expected, stroboscopic detection scores increased with increasing SVM. For the horizontal task, average scores were lower than the expected 4/8 at ∼0.90, but increased non-linearly with higher SVMs. Stroboscopic detection scores did not differ between people low and high in pattern glare sensitivity, but people in the high-pattern glare sensitivity group reported greater annoyance in the SVM ∼1.4 and ∼3.0 conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it