Eye Movement Features in the Depth and Spatial Perspective Perception of Paintings and Other Static Scenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, using the example of two scenes, they showed that it is possible to perceive the depth and spatial perspective of painting images (and other static scenes) without the condition of binocular disparity (hereinafter referred to as the 3D phenomenon). To study the 3D phenomenon, eye movement is recorded. The students of the Institute of Physics at Kazan Federal University and an experienced researcher of the 3D phenomenon, the author and the developer of the working methodology took part in the surveys on eye movement record. To identify the perception of spatial perspective, 3D raster images are used mounted on the same static stimulus scenes (pictures). The first plot includes obtaining information on eye movement in the conditions of perception of two paintings with the elements of a monocular perspective of images. Histograms show that students perceive the perspective of the pictures displayed on the monitor screen. In two scenes presented, eye focusing occurs outside the plane of stimulus images. When students demonstrate a monitor screen with text and a white sheet of the histogram, they show that the focus planes are located between the screen and the students' eyes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".