Consistent monocular cues eliminate the influence of perceptual grouping on stereopsis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perceptual grouping (via closure) degrades stereoacuity and depth magnitude estimation e.g., McKee (1983) showed thresholds are elevated when two lines are connected to form a rectangle. Experiments that show these effects have all used line targets presented using stereoscopic displays with other depth information eliminated or held constant. However, there is evidence that when physical targets are used, the detrimental effects of grouping are eliminated. In these experiments we evaluate the extent to which the presence of ‘supportive’ monocular depth cues impacts the forementioned grouping effect. We used line configurations similar to those used previously in isolated and ‘closed object’ configurations with and without consistent perspective and motion parallax information. Four vertical lines were presented in two configurations 1) isolated lines and 2) with horizontal lines connecting the inner pair (grouped). Both configurations were rendered with consistent and inconsistent perspective foreshortening and were viewed while either stationary or moving. Stimuli were displayed using an Oculus Rift such that correct motion parallax was available in the motion condition. Observers indicated how much depth they perceived between the two central lines using a touch-sensitive sensor strip ranging between 0 to 4cm in 1cm steps. Our results confirmed that when only binocular disparity information was present, depth judgements were more accurate for isolated lines than closed objects. However, the disruptive effect of grouping was reduced when perspective cues were present (viewed without moving) and eliminated when motion parallax was also available. Taken together, these results support the hypothesis that presentation of binocular disparity information under unnatural, cue-restricted conditions makes it susceptible to contextual effects that may not represent how processing occurs in natural cue-rich environments. While the impact of mid-level perceptual grouping on isolated depth information provides important insights into visual processing, caution should be taken in generalizing the results to natural environments.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".