Perceptual filling-in dispels the veridicality problem of conscious perception research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conscious perceptual experiences are expected to correlate with content-specific brain activity. A veridicality problem arises when attempting to disentangle unconscious and conscious brain processes if conscious perceptual contents accurately match the physical nature of the stimulus. We argue that perceptual filling-in, a phenomenon whereby visual information inaccurately spreads across visual space, is a promising approach to circumvent the veridicality problem. Filling-in generates non-veridical although unambiguous percepts dissociated from stimulus input. In particular, the radial uniformity illusion induces a filling-in experience between a central disk and the surrounding periphery. We discuss how this illusion facilitates both the detection of neurophysiological responses and subjective phenomenological monitoring. We report behavioral effects from a large-sample (n = 200) psychophysics study and examine key stimulus parameters that drive the conscious filling-in experience. We propose that these data underpin future hypothesis-driven studies of filling-in to further delineate the neural mechanisms of conscious perception.
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 | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".