Re-pairing: Perceptual reorganization of moving visual patterns from sensory fusion.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crossed gratings moving behind an aperture are often seen as a single moving 2D plaid (Adelson & Movshon, Nature 1982). We report here when two distinct moving 2D plaids that are made of four crossed moving gratings of similar physical properties but different orientation (hence lacking a common velocity vector) are superimposed inside a single aperture, the moving grating components can radically reorganize immediately, yielding two completely new and distinct plaids that are seen to move in different directions on two transparent planes. Such spectacular image self-reorganization can even emerge when observers view two dichoptically presented monocular plaids (inside a 10[sup]o[/sup] circular aperture) that are made up of non-rivalrous square wave gratings of low spatial frequency (0.2 cpd), low luminance contrast (10 – 20%), and moving at a speed of 1 deg/sec. As a result of sensory fusion, two distinct, new cyclopeanly perceived 2D plaids are seen in transparent motion. In the dichoptic case, the predominant cyclopeanly seen moving plaids can arise from interocular exchange of components (‘re-pairing’) from the monocular plaids. This exchange underlying image self-reorganization happens if and only if it minimizes perceived motion. Thus, if the left eye views a moving 30[sup]o[/sup] plaid consists of gratings oriented at 0[sup]o[/sup] and 30[sup]o[/sup], and the right eye views another moving 30[sup]o[/sup] plaid consists of gratings oriented at 70[sup]o[/sup] and 100[sup]o[/sup], observers perceive two 70[sup]o[/sup] plaids (the 0[sup]o [/sup]grating of one eye re-pairs with the 70[sup]o [/sup]one from the other[sup] [/sup]eye, while the 30[sup]o[/sup] grating repairs with the remaining 100[sup]o[/sup] grating) moving at different directions from the original monocular 30[sup]o [/sup]plaids. This reduces the total perceived motion. Our findings reveal the presence of inherent rules in global motion perception that can even shatter monocular image integrity. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".