Reduced fixation stability induced by peripheral viewing does not contribute to crowding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attending to peripheral visual targets while maintaining central fixation, a process that involves covert attention, reduces fixation stability. Here, we tested the hypothesis that changes in fixation stability induced by peripheral viewing contribute to crowding in peripheral vision by increasing positional uncertainty. We first assessed whether fixation was less stable during peripheral versus central (foveal) viewing for both crowded and uncrowded stimuli. We then tested whether fixation stability during peripheral viewing was associated with the extent of crowding. Fourteen participants performed a tumbling E orientation discrimination task at three different eccentricities (0°, 5°, 10°). The target was presented with or without flankers. Fixational eye movements were measured using an infrared video-based eyetracker. A central fixation cross was provided for the two peripheral viewing conditions, and optotype size was scaled for each eccentricity. Discrimination of appropriately scaled uncrowded stimuli was unaffected by eccentricity, whereas discrimination of crowded stimuli deteriorated dramatically with eccentricity, despite scaling. Both crowded and uncrowded peripheral stimuli were associated with reduced fixation stability, increased microsaccadic amplitude, and a greater proportion of horizontal microsaccades relative to centrally presented stimuli. However, these effects were not associated with the magnitude of crowding. This suggests that reduced fixation stability due to peripheral viewing does not contribute to crowding in peripheral vision.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".