Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to discriminate animate objects from inanimate ones is fundamental to social cognition. Previous research focusing on low-level motion cues to the visual perception of animacy has revealed a robust and reliable association between the perception of speed and the perception of animacy: Objects perceived as moving relatively faster are also perceived as animate more often than relatively slower objects. To test whether these perceptions could be dissociated, we presented participants with displays of two objects travelling in succession across a screen in opposite directions. Using a within-subjects design, participants were instructed to report which object appeared alive on half the trials and faster on the other half, in a two-alternative forced-choice task. Experimental trials presented objects appearing to move with or against gravity by “rising up” and “falling down” on a vertical screen; control trials presented objects travelling leftwards and rightwards. “Rising” objects were judged as animate more often than “falling” objects, perhaps due to the perceived presence of an internal power source allowing the object to violate gravity. Conversely, the “falling” objects were judged as faster than “rising” objects, suggesting that the pairing of speed and animacy can be dissociated. Additionally, objects travelling from left-to-right were judged as both faster and animate more often than objects travelling right-to-left. A follow-up experiment using the same stimuli and procedures on bilingual people who are fluent readers in a language read from right-to-left revealed no speed or animacy bias for horizontal directions. These experiments imply that judgements of speed and animacy can be influenced by higher-order visual processes, such as those related to highly familiarized concepts of motion forces (e.g., gravity), directionality (e.g., reading), and possibly highly trained motoric responses, such as those reinforced by reading.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".