MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412459098 · doi:10.1167/jov.25.9.2044

The temporal features of size constancy in two- and three-dimensional stimuli reveals a real-world advantage

2025· article· en· W4412459098 on OpenAlexaff
Mirko Tommasini, Sara Battisti, Romeo M. Minutolo, Giulia Tonielli, Simona Noviello, Juan Chen, Melvyn A. Goodale, Irene Sperandio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubjective constancyCommunicationBiologyPsychologyNeurosciencePerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Size constancy is the ability to maintain a stable percept of object size despite variations in the retinal image due to changes in viewing distance. Recent research using real-world objects at real distances has demonstrated that this phenomenon emerges at the earliest stages of cortical processing. It remains unclear, however, whether these findings are applicable to both 3D and 2D stimuli. Here, participants were presented with either 3D or 2D stimuli placed at different distances and asked to perform a manual size estimation using their right thumb and index finger. The stimulus physical size was scaled with respect to distance to yield a constant retinal angle. Concurrently, electroencephalographic (EEG) data were recorded using a 64-channel scalp electrode array. Results revealed an advantage for real objects in the computation of size constancy, as indicated by an earlier difference in neural responses to small versus large stimuli, observable in the first positive-going component, peaking at ~80 ms after stimulus onset. In contrast, size constancy for 2D stimuli emerged approximately 150 ms after stimulus onset. Furthermore, stimulus predictability played a role in enabling faster size-distance integration. These findings provide electrophysiological evidence for a ‘real-object advantage’ in size constancy. This advantage may be partially explained by top-down mechanisms, such as affordance—the potential to physically interact with an object—which could enhance the perceptual processing of real 3D objects relative to 2D representations. Additionally, 3D objects may provide visual cues to distance that are not available in 2D stimuli, further contributing to size constancy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207