Perceiving depth and motion in depth from successive occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occlusion, or interposition, is one of the strongest and best-known pictorial cues to depth. Furthermore, the successive occlusions of previous objects by newly presented objects produces an impression of increasing depth. Although the perceived motion associated with this illusion has been studied, the depth percept has not. To investigate, participants were presented with two piles of disks with one always static and the other either a static pile or a stacking pile where a new disk was added every 200 ms. We found static piles with equal number of disks appeared equal in height. In contrast, the successive presentation of disks in the stacking condition appeared to enhance the perceived height of the stack-fewer disks were needed to match the static pile. Surprisingly, participants were also more precise when comparing stacking versus static piles of disks. Reversing the stacking by removing rather than adding disks reversed the bias and degraded precision. In follow-up experiments, we used nonoverlapping static and dynamic configurations to show that the effects are not due to simple differences in perceived numerosity. In sum, our results show that successive occlusions generate a greater sense of height than occlusion alone, and we posit that dynamic occlusion may be an underappreciated source of depth information.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".