What motion information can be retained within iconic memory?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some motion information can be retained within iconic memory. Energy-based motion processing is known to be pre-attentive, whereas high-level motion processing can be described as attentively tracking the position of an object. The aim of the current study was to determine which motion information can be retained in iconic memory. Eight rotating sinewave gratings were presented simultaneously around an annulus of 5 degrees of visual angle. Each sinewave grating was presented in two 100-msec frames within which it was rotated 30 deg either clockwise or counterclockwise. The phase of the grating was either identical in the two frames or randomized, which provided local energy-based motion signals that were either strongly correlated or uncorrelated with the rotating direction thereby probing the energy-based or tracking motion system, respectively. Participants were asked to report the motion direction (i.e., clockwise vs counterclockwise) of the sinewave grating that was cued with an arrow presented at fixation. To modulate attentional resources dedicated to the target, the timing of the cue varied from 300 msec before the motion occurred (i.e., at the onset of the second frame) up to 400 msec after the motion occurred. When the phase of the sinewave grating was unchanged between the two frames, motion direction discrimination was good even when the cue was presented briefly after the motion occurred, which suggests that the energy-based rotational information was retained in iconic memory. When the phases of the two frames were uncorrelated, direction discrimination was possible only when the central cue was presented at least about 200 msec before the motion occurred and was at chance when the cue was presented briefly after the motion occurred, which suggests that high-level orientation tracking requires attention and cannot be retained in iconic memory.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".