Bibliographic record
Abstract
Everybody loves illusions. At times, the content on the internet seems to be mostly about illusions-shoes, dresses, straight lines looking bent. This attraction has a long history. Almost 2,000 years ago, Ptolemy marveled at how the sail of a distant boat could appear convex or concave. This sense of marvel continues to drive our fascination with illusions; indeed, few other corners of science can boast of such a large reach. However, illusions not only draw in the crowds; they also offer insights into visual processes. This review starts with a simple definition of illusions as conflicts between perception and cognition, where what we see does not agree with what we believe we should see. This mismatch can be either because cognition has misunderstood how perception works or because perception has misjudged the visual input. It is the perceptual errors that offer the chance to track the development of perception across visual regions. Unfortunately, the effects of illusions in different brain regions cannot be isolated in any simple way: Top-down projections from attention broadcast the expected perceptual properties everywhere, obscuring the critical evidence of where the illusion and perception emerge. The second part of this review then highlights the roadblocks to research raised by attention and describes current solutions for accessing what illusions can offer.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".