Target motion misjudgments reflect a misperception of the background; revealed using continuous psychophysics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining the velocities of target objects as we navigate complex environments is made more difficult by the fact that our own motion adds systematic motion signals to the visual scene. The flow-parsing hypothesis asserts that the background motion is subtracted from visual scenes in such cases as a way for the visual system to determine target motions relative to the scene. Here, we address the question of why backgrounds are only partially subtracted in lab settings. At the same time, we probe a much-neglected aspect of scene perception in flow-parsing studies, that is, the perception of the background itself. Here, we present results from three experienced psychophysical participants and one inexperienced participant who took part in three continuous psychophysics experiments. We show that, when the background optic flow pattern is composed of local elements whose motions are congruent with the global optic flow pattern, the incompleteness of the background subtraction can be entirely accounted for by a misperception of the background. When the local velocities comprising the background are randomly dispersed around the average global velocity, an additional factor is needed to explain the subtraction incompleteness. We show that a model where background perception is a result of the brain attempting to infer scene motion due to self-motion can account for these results.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".