The Ebbinghaus illusion influences cursor movement but not final accuracy or movement time in a point-and-click task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a trackpad to control an on-screen cursor requires the transformation of proximal finger movements into distal cursor movements displayed within the screen’s allocentric reference frame. Transforming a visually guided action into scene-based coordinates may increase the degree of perceptual influence during a point-and-click task. In this study, the Ebbinghaus illusion was used in three experiments to explore how the perceived size of an on-screen target influences cursor movements and click-point accuracy. Participants completed the experiment remotely, using the trackpad of their personal laptop computers. The task involved a series of trials requiring participants to click on a single circular target presented at either the left or right side of the screen as quickly and accurately as possible (Experiment 1), or to emphasize speed (Experiment 2) or accuracy (Experiment 3). On each trial the target was either surrounded by small or large context circles, or no context circles. Trials presenting veridically smaller or larger targets without context circles were also included for comparison. A size comparison task demonstrated participants’ perceptual size judgments were influenced by the illusory context. However, the illusion failed to produce differences in click-point accuracy or movement time. Interestingly, cursor trajectories demonstrated an increased number of direction changes when clicking the Perceived Large target compared to the Perceived Small target in Experiment 1. This comparison was replicated in Experiment 2, but only when the targets were presented on the right side of the screen. The number of directional changes increased for all target types except for the Perceived Small target in Experiment 3. These results suggest the planning and early stages of cursor movement may have been influenced by the perceptual illusory context while later stages were not, and cursor movements directed toward targets perceived as smaller required less correction compared to targets perceived as larger.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".