Transformational Apparent Motion In A Recurrent Neural Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sudden onset of a shape that connects two disjoint static figures can induce perception of motion in the form of a continuous shape-change. We previously proposed that the direction of this Transformational Apparent Motion (TAM) is determined by shape correspondence independently of the features defining the shapes (Saleki et al., 2022). Here, using a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN, 128 hidden units), we explored the processing involved in the perception of this illusory motion. We trained an RNN using reinforcement learning framework on a perceptual decision-making task with TAM stimuli. The motion direction for each stimulus configuration was labeled to the left, to the right, or colliding in the middle according to the illusory motion direction reported in previous studies with human participants. The RNN was able to learn the task completely (100% accuracy on test dataset). Principle Component Analysis (PCA) revealed that network activity in different stimulus conditions diverged after the onset of the connecting stimulus on each trial (simulated with 4 time steps for the equivalent of 200 ms between the onset and response), and occupied different parts of the activity space by the end of trial. This was confirmed by representational similarity analysis, indicating that the representations of leftward and rightward motion had a greater distance to each other than to the motion toward the middle. Using PCA loadings, we found the most discriminative units in the network and observed different clusters based on characteristic response profiles. To evaluate feature independence, we tested the network that was trained on solid shapes on a separate dataset where stimuli were defined only by their outlines. The network achieved perfect performance in this task as well, showing similar characteristics in most of the analyses. Our findings provide insights into the underlying processes involved in perception of motion in TAM.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".