Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bayesian models of object recognition propose the resolution of ambiguity through probabilistic integration of prior experience with available sensory information. Color, even when task-irrelevant, has been shown to modulate high-level cognitive control tasks. However, it remains unclear how color modulations affect lower-level perceptual processing. We investigated whether color affects feature integration using the flash-jump illusion. This illusion occurs when an apparent motion stimulus, a rectangular bar appearing at different locations along a motion trajectory, changes color at a single position. Observers misperceive this color change as occurring farther along the trajectory of motion. This mislocalization error is proposed to be produced by a Bayesian perceptual framework dependent on responses in area V4. Our results demonstrated that the color of the flash modulated the magnitude of the flash-jump illusion such that participants reported less of a shift, i.e., a more veridical flash location, for both red and blue flashes, as compared to green and yellow. Our findings extend color-dependent modulation effects found in higher-order executive functions into lower-level Bayesian perceptual processes. Our results also support the theory that feature integration is a Bayesian process. In this framework, color modulations play an inherent and automatic role as different colors have different weights in Bayesian perceptual processing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".