Expectations about motion direction affect perception and anticipatory smooth pursuit differently
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Smooth pursuit eye movements and visual motion perception rely on the integration of current sensory signals with past experience. Experience shapes our expectation of current visual events and can drive eye movement responses made in anticipation of a target, such as anticipatory pursuit. Previous research revealed consistent effects of expectation on anticipatory pursuit—eye movements follow the expected target direction or speed—and contrasting effects on motion perception, but most studies considered either eye movement or perceptual responses. The current study directly compared effects of direction expectation on perception and anticipatory pursuit within the same direction discrimination task to investigate whether both types of responses are affected similarly or differently. Observers ( n = 10) viewed high-coherence random-dot kinematograms (RDKs) moving rightward and leftward with a probability of 50, 70, or 90% in a given block of trials to build up an expectation of motion direction. They were asked to judge motion direction of interleaved low-coherence RDKs (0-15%). Perceptual judgements were compared to changes in anticipatory pursuit eye movements as a function of probability. Results show that anticipatory pursuit velocity scaled with probability and followed direction expectation (attraction bias), whereas perceptual judgments were biased opposite to direction expectation (repulsion bias). Control experiments suggest that the repulsion bias in perception was not caused by retinal slip induced by anticipatory pursuit, or by motion adaptation. We conclude that direction expectation can be processed differently for perception and anticipatory pursuit.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".