The false aperture problem: Global motion perception without integration of local motion signals.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early direction-selective neurons in the primary visual cortex are widely considered to be the main neural basis underlying motion perception even though motion perception can also rely on attentively tracking the position of objects. Because of their small receptive fields, early direction-selective neurons suffer from the aperture problem, which is assumed to be overcome by integrating inputs from many early direction-selective neurons. Because the perceived motion of objects sometimes depends on static form information and does not always match the mean direction of local motion signals, the general consensus is that motion integration is form dependent and complex. Based on the fact that early direction-selective neurons respond to motion only within a short temporal window, the present study used stroboscopic motion to test their contribution to motion perception of objects. For conditions under which the perceived motion was impaired by stroboscopic motion, the perceived motion matched the mean direction of local motion signals and was form independent. For classic conditions under which the perceived motion could not be explained by a simple form independent averaging of local motion signals, neutralizing the contribution of early direction-selective neurons using stroboscopic motion had little impact on the perceived motion, which demonstrates that the perceived motion relied on position tracking, not on early direction-selective neurons. When the perceived motion relies on position tracking, assuming that motion perception relies on early direction-selective neurons can lead to erroneously postulate the existence of complex or form-dependent integration of inputs from early direction-selective neurons. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".