The Psychophysics of Human Three-Dimensional Active Visuospatial Problem-Solving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Our understanding of how visual systems detect, analyze and interpret visual stimuli has advanced greatly. However, the visual systems of all animals do much more; they enable visual behaviours. How well the visual system performs while interacting with the visual environment and how vision is used in the real world is not well studied, especially in humans. It has been suggested that comparison is the most primitive of psychophysical tasks. Thus, as a probe into these active visual behaviours, we use a same-different task: are two physical 3D objects visually the same? This task is a fundamental cognitive ability. We pose this question to human subjects who are free to move about and examine two real objects in an actual 3D space. Past work has dealt solely with a 2D static version of this problem. We collected detailed, first-of-its-kind data of humans performing a visuospatial task in hundreds of trials. Strikingly, humans are remarkably good at this task without training, with a mean accuracy of 93.82%. No learning effect was observed on accuracy after many trials, but some effect was seen for response time, number of fixations and extent of head movement. Subjects demonstrated a variety of complex strategies involving a range of movement and eye fixation changes, suggesting that solutions were developed dynamically and tailored to the specific task.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".