Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Fraser-Wilcox illusion is seen in a circular pattern that is divided into sectors containing repeated luminance gradients. The pattern appears to rotate, especially when the observer makes saccadic eye movements or blinks. The illusion has been known since 1979, but its origin is still disputed. The most prominent theory, which proposes that the latency of neural responses varies across the pattern (Conway et al., J. Neuro., 2005), cannot explain the long duration of the motion or why the illusion is weaker in older participants, or under pinhole viewing. We propose that the illusion is caused by changes in the retinal luminance of the pattern, due either to changes in pupil diameter during eye movements or to the transit of the eyelid across the pupil during blinks. It is already known that luminance change can generate illusory motion in patterns containing luminance gradients (e.g., Mather, Vision Res., 1984), so we argue that the Fraser-Wilcox illusion is part of this illusion class. This new explanation can account for the importance of eye movements and blinks, the effect of age (reduced pupil mobility), and the duration of the motion impressions. A simulation of the illusion in which pattern luminance is modulated with the same time-course as that caused by blinks and saccades creates a markedly enhanced impression of illusory motion.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".