Ability to Extract Extrafoveal Information Modulates Object Processing in Naturalistic Scenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In naturalistic scene processing, individuals adopt multiple resources to facilitate their object identification processes. For instance, scene context information contains many cues to facilitate recognition of an object, including the scene gist category and other semantically related objects. Similarly, individuals’ capacity to allocate attention independently from eye-movement suggests extrafoveal processing under circumstances where target objects are not in the center of fixation. Previous studies have shown that target-related objects or scene context, as well as extrafoveal processing of the object, may boost object perception. However, very few studies have examined the effect of multiple sources of information on object processing simultaneously. In the present study, we investigated whether scene context and distance from fixation would interact and influence individuals’ object identification. Using a modified dot-boundary paradigm, we manipulated the distance of objects in relation to the fixation so that participants have varying difficulty in processing the objects with peripheral vision. Crucially, we examined whether individuals’ ability to extract extrafoveal information was modulated by a semantically related scene context. Our findings revealed a robust preview effect, although there was no scene context effect and nor a context-preview interaction. Altogether, our data suggest individuals may have chosen to rely on one route of facilitation when the other path is restricted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".