Foveal Splitting of Compounds and Pseudocompounds using Anaglyphs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the nature of linguistic codes at the earliest moments of visual word recognition by employing red-blue anaglyph glasses to split compounds (e.g., snowball) and pseudocompounds (e.g., cartridge) along the fovea’s vertical meridian. By hypothesis, anaglyphs allowed us to manipulate the role of retinotopic projections during visual processing, whereby word segments were projected to the right or left hemisphere via the ipsilateral or contralateral pathways. Furthermore, this technique allows the embedded words (i.e., constituents) of compounds and pseudocompounds to be presented independently in the visual word form area. Seventy-one participants performed a visual masked lexical decision task, where they made word-nonword judgements. Stimuli were presented for 133 milliseconds either completely in black (both pathways), red/blue (ipsilateral pathways) and blue/red (contralateral pathways). The compounds and pseudocompounds were split into their constituents (legal split) or one letter to the left or to right of the morpheme boundary (illegal split). Compounds varied in the degree of semantic transparency, either transparent (T) or opaque (O), of constituents (e.g., TT, snowball; OT, crowbar; TO, jailbird; OO, hogwash). The accuracy and response times (RTs) to the lexical decision task were analyzed using linear mixed effects models. Results suggest an advantage for words processed through both visual pathways than when they are projected contralaterally (both in accuracy and RTs) and ipsilaterally (in accuracy only). Furthermore, legally split stimuli were judged faster and more accurately than illegal split stimuli regardless of word type. Responses to compounds were more accurate when compared to pseudocompounds. Taken together, these findings suggest that the early visual word recognition system is sensitive to the internal structure of compounds and pseudocompounds, but blind to the semantic contribution of their constituents.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it