Phase integration bias in a motion grouping task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The perception of the direction of global motion depends on our ability to integrate local motion signals over space and time. We examined motion binding using a task requiring integration of relative phase. Observers completed multiple tasks involving clockwise and counter clockwise motion in a stimulus comprising four sets of linearly arranged dots, two moving horizontally and two moving vertically along sinusoidal trajectories differing in phase. Noise jitter was added along the trajectory perpendicular to each dot's motion. The noise acts as a global grouping cue that improves direction discrimination, but surprisingly, the absence of noise causes consistent below-chance performance (Lorenceau, 1996). We explore this phenomenon and subsequently test the hypothesis that observers perceive reverse motion because their representation of the relative phase of the motion components is systematically biased. We employ a number of different objective and subjective measures of motion integration and measure the phenomenon in both younger and older adults. Taken together, the results presented in the current article demonstrate that noise can promote global grouping in the stimulus and that confident, incorrect responses can be observed in the absence of correct global grouping. Generally, the current result raises the possibility that an integration bias could exist in other motion tasks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".