Corrective mechanisms of motion extrapolation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transmission and processing of sensory information in the visual system takes time. For motion perception, our brain can overcome this intrinsic neural delay through extrapolation mechanisms and accurately predict the current position of a continuously moving object. But how does the system behave when the motion abruptly changes and the prediction becomes wrong? Here we address this question by studying the perceived position of a moving object with various abrupt motion changes by human observers. We developed a task in which a bar is monotonously moving horizontally, and then motion suddenly stops, reverses, or disappears-then-reverses around two vertical stationary reference lines. Our results showed that participants overestimated the position of the stopping bar but did not perceive an overshoot in the motion reversal condition. When a temporal gap was added at the reverse point, the perceptual overshoot of the end point scaled with the gap durations. Our model suggests that the overestimation of the object position when it disappears is not linear as a function of its speeds but gradually fades out. These results can thus be reconciled in a single process where there is an interplay of the cortical motion prediction mechanisms and the late sensory transient visual inputs.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".