MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386244578 · doi:10.1167/jov.23.9.5159

Stereopsis from interocular temporal delay: disentangling the effects of target versus background luminance

2023· article· en· W4386244578 on OpenAlexaff
Takahiro Doi, Laurie M. Wilcox, T. Scott Murdison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuminancePerceptStimulus (psychology)Binocular disparityContrast (vision)PsychologyDepth perceptionPsychophysicsComputer visionStereopsisBinocular visionArtificial intelligencePerceptionOpticsAudiologyPhysicsComputer scienceCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introducing differences to the left-eye and right-eye images is an informative way to study stereoscopic depth perception, and particularly relevant to optically-limited stereoscopic displays (e.g., virtual and augmented reality). One such example with dynamic visual inputs is the Pulfrich effect–a depth misperception observed for horizontally moving objects with interocular luminance differences classically applied globally to both the moving stimuli and their background. Here, we disentangled the effects of the interocular luminance differences of moving stimuli and background in the Pulfrich effect. In our experiment, an observer judged the perceived direction of the 3D rotation of a sinusoidally-moving pair of small white squares presented against a gray background. The stimuli were presented in a mirror haploscope. In randomly interleaved trials we applied interocular luminance differences to the moving stimulus, the stationary background, or both. The stimulus and background manipulations introduced interocular contrast differences, which are also known to cause the Pulfrich effect. To estimate the magnitude of the illusory depth percept, we introduced a nulling interocular delay to the undimmed eye, and measured psychometric functions using the method of constant stimuli. Surprisingly, we found that the interocular delay required to null the effect was larger with ​​the stimulus-only luminance manipulation than with the classic global or the background manipulation. Our results suggest that contrast plays a more significant role in modulating the phenomenon than previously thought. However, the source of the contrast variation (object versus background luminance) is important; larger effects were seen when the target luminance was varied than vice versa. These results have potentially important implications for understanding neural mechanisms responsible for this spatio-temporal illusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207