Are onscreen cursor movements influenced by the Ebbinghaus illusion? Exploring perception–action interaction in a virtual environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Two-Visual-Streams Hypothesis (TVSH) of vision proposes a functional separation between the perception of a visual stimulus and the control of visually guided action toward that stimulus. This study tested whether the separation of perception and action proposed by the TVSH is also demonstrated when executing visually guided cursor movements toward onscreen targets. Participants used a trackpad to click onscreen circular targets embedded within the Ebbinghaus ("Titchener Circles") illusion and were thus perceived as either larger or smaller than their true size. Participants were more accurate when clicking on the perceived larger target compared to the perceived smaller target, indicating their performance was influenced by their perception of target size (Experiment 1). There was no effect of the illusion when visual feedback of the target was removed at the beginning of the trial (Experiment 2) or removed following a 2-second target-viewing period (Experiment 3). Conclusion: The perceptual features of an onscreen stimulus mediate the guidance of cursor movements toward visible targets. Illusion-based perceptions of target size do not affect actions toward disappeared targets, however. These results contribute to the theoretical principles of the TVSH by testing its predictions in a novel onscreen environment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".