MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043758084 · doi:10.1177/2041669520933309

Apparent Motion Is Computed in Perceptual Coordinates

2020· article· en· W3043758084 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuei-Perception · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilBureau of International Cooperation, Chinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth CollegeNational Science Foundation
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)PerceptionPhysicsMotion perceptionComputer visionOffset (computer science)PsychologyArtificial intelligenceCommunicationGeodesyComputer scienceCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a Gabor moves in one direction in the visual periphery while its internal texture moves in the orthogonal direction, its perceived direction can deviate from its physical direction by as much as 45° or more. Lisi et al. showed that immediate saccades go to the physical location of double-drift targets, whereas delayed saccades primarily go to their perceived locations. Here, we investigated whether the apparent motion seen from the offset of a double-drift stimulus to the onset of a later target probe originates from the perceived or physical location of the double-drift stimulus. We find that apparent motion proceeds away from the perceived position of the double-drift stimulus at all temporal delays. This suggests that apparent motion is computed in perceptual rather than retinotopic coordinates.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.223 · 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