A continuous tracking measure of orientation sensitivity and bias in the visual periphery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual performance varies significantly across the visual field, revealing variations in sensitivity at different locations within and across observers. These include polar angle asymmetries—variations in performance across angular locations. Conventional methods for measuring these variations are time consuming but can be made more efficient with recent continuous tracking methods, in which observers follow a continuously changing target. This method calculates the peak of the cross-correlation between the tracked and reference stimuli, effectively assessing sensitivity. However, it does not directly quantify perceptual bias, which reflects systematic errors in perception. To address this, we introduce a novel approach to simultaneously map bias and sensitivity in orientation perception across the visual field at 8º eccentricity across four locations (upper, lower, right, and left). Participants fixate a central grating and adjust its orientation to match the orientation of a randomly rotating peripheral grating. We measured perceptual sensitivity by calculating the peak of the cross-correlation between the central and peripheral gratings. In addition, we measured bias by calculating the difference between observed and actual orientation values at each orientation, which are then grouped and averaged. To validate this approach, participants completed a second condition, in which we used the tilt illusion to measure biases in perceived orientation with a 45º annular surround for the peripheral grating. We reveal significant variations in the strength of the tilt illusion among participants and locations. Additionally, participants demonstrated significant variation in location-specific sensitivity in tracking the grating, both with and without the annulus in the periphery. Sensitivity was well correlated between the two tasks (p < .001), but lower with a surrounding annulus. Our results highlight individual differences in sensitivity and bias across the visual field with our novel continuous tracking paradigm, and variation in the magnitude of the tilt illusion in different peripheral field locations.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".