MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386503443 · doi:10.1167/jov.23.10.4

The double-drift illusion biases the marmoset oculomotor system

2023· article· en· W4386503443 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas M. Dotson, Zachary W. Davis, Jared M. Salisbury, Stephanie E. Palmer, Patrick Cavanagh, John H. Reynolds

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaccadeMarmosetIllusionStimulus (psychology)PerceptionPsychologyNeuroscienceEye movementCognitive psychologyComputer visionComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The double-drift illusion has two unique characteristics: The error between the perceived and physical position of the stimulus grows over time, and saccades to the moving target land much closer to the physical than the perceived location. These results suggest that the perceptual and saccade targeting systems integrate visual information over different time scales. Functional imaging studies in humans have revealed several potential cortical areas of interest, including the prefrontal cortex. However, we currently lack an animal model to study the neural mechanisms of location perception that underlie the double-drift illusion. To fill this gap, we trained two marmoset monkeys to fixate and then saccade to the double-drift stimulus. In line with human observers for radial double-drift trajectories with fast internal motion, we find that saccade endpoints show a significant bias that is, nevertheless, smaller than the bias seen in human perceptual reports. This bias is modulated by changes in the external and internal speeds of the stimulus. These results demonstrate that the saccade targeting system of the marmoset monkey is influenced by the double-drift 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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