Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
Discussions reflect a general interest in the research's connection to broader vision science topics, such as motion perception and perceptual calibration, with examples like references to symmetry with earlier work and mention of related experiments. The tone suggests respect for the work’s significance but stops short of strong enthusiasm or critique, emphasizing its role in ongoing scientific dialogues.
Most discussions acknowledge the relevance of the article, with some referencing related concepts in vision science, indicating general agreement on its significance.
The posts show mild interest, with some sharing background knowledge and linking to other foundational studies, suggesting a curiosity without deep critique or enthusiasm.
Participants reference specific studies and methodological approaches, demonstrating moderate engagement, but tend to stay at a surface level without deep critique or exploration.
The discussions imply that the article contributes to ongoing conversations but don't highlight immediate transformative effects, leading to a neutral impact assessment.
Here's the paper I'm reading: https://t.co/3IXx2hmC24 for demonstration. Since I’m presenting this as a live(ish) demo, there are going to be some dead ends (things I try that don’t work), but that’s fine because that’s life.
Anstis, S. M. (1970). Phi movement as a subtraction process. Vision Research, 10, 1411–1430. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(70)90092-1 https://t.co/Y5ZYl5Afrg
Neither great for old papers though. So, clicking through the @scite link (takes me here: https://t.co/R6303uRKis) shows me snippets of text from the papers which cite this paper.
https://t.co/o8SLRYvc3N どんぴしゃなタイトルだ
@tsawallis @ConstantinRoth1 @RucciMichele @HafedLab In a seminar on vision, shouldn’t papers that do not consider eye movements be the exception? But I suppose 1 paper per seminar does reflect the proportions in the classics in vision science accurately.
The one of special interest is the one marked as 'supporting' (https://t.co/3IXx2hmC24). It seems like @scite use a black box to make these distinctions, but it’s enough to make me actually skim the paper and see what they’re saying.
This video discusses early visual development in infants, highlighting research on how newborns perceive shapes and colors, and the brain's visual cortex maturation. It also covers recent studies on contrast response…
This video explores the science behind negative afterimages, their properties, and related visual perception phenomena, including optical and neural mechanisms, to provide a detailed understanding of this intriguing…
https://t.co/vCbuyySbWz Smeets JB, Brenner E. The difference between the perception of absolute and relative motion: a reaction time study. Vision Res. 1994 Jan;34(2):191-5. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(94)90331-x. PMID: 8116278. 絶対速度と相対速度の知覚の論文は無料でここでよめますね
RT @AkiyoshiKitaoka: Anstis, S. M. (1970). Phi movement as a subtraction process. Vision Research, 10, 1411–1430. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(70…
Anstis, S. M. (1970). Phi movement as a subtraction process. Vision Research, 10, 1411–1430. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(70)90092-1 https://t.co/Y5ZYl5Afrg
@PsychScientists Sure, there's a physical cause, but it need not be an actual visual target being tracked. See also https://t.co/PNophm7xKS
By removing the lens, we get less UV absorption! And some of this UV light is picked up by the S cone, resulting in a visible color signal in our brain https://t.co/Os11RrXTa9
@tsawallis @ConstantinRoth1 @RucciMichele @HafedLab In a seminar on vision, shouldn’t papers that do not consider eye movements be the exception? But I suppose 1 paper per seminar does reflect the proportions in the classics in vision science accurately.
@StevenDakin Field, D. J., & Hess, R. F. (1996). Uncalibrated Distortions vs Undersampling. Vision Research, 36(14), 2121–2124. https://t.co/UkmaqED2uS
@StevenDakin Levi, D. M., & Klein, S. A. (1996). Limitations on Position Coding Imposed by Undersampling and Univariance. Vision Research, 36(14), 2111–2120. https://t.co/xCSj1ILhRS
@StevenDakin best I've found so far Hess, R. F., & Field, D. (1993). Is the increased spatial uncertainty in the normal periphery due to spatial undersampling or uncalibrated disarray? Vision Research, 33(18), 2663–2670. https://t.co/BFMlXcDpG8
Our sensitivity to speed changes and the way we smoothly pursue moving objects of different speeds are correlated. However, expectation and training affect the sensorimotor relationship between eye velocity and target velocity. https://t.co/LvIfOB3tqx
RT @dynamicsoar: https://t.co/o8SLRYvc3N どんぴしゃなタイトルだ
https://t.co/o8SLRYvc3N どんぴしゃなタイトルだ
That was tried (in a heroic experiment) by Wolpert et al https://t.co/GOJ47Dewpq . They concluded that the main site of adaptation is in the retina. 1/4 https://t.co/d01j8c3Gl3
RT @da5nsy: Neither great for old papers though. So, clicking through the @scite link (takes me here: https://t.co/R6303uRKis) shows me sn…
Dawis from 1981: "The advantage in having polynomial expressions of the pigment nomograms is that the search for the best-fitting ... values can be done computer." https://t.co/512qcRSgVB 4/end+1 https://t.co/Jsl3nHKKoU
I am influenced by our earlier work on perceiving object shape. We found strong evidence that disparity is used hierarchically: as uncalibrated as possible given the task, but something like a Euclidean representation if necessary. https://t.co/Gqn1kjMmlm 3/3 https://t.co/nXvuWuNK64
RT @mspitschan: What a correction to an obituary(!). Legends of vision science https://t.co/PWnjY6boKS https://t.co/lC0OFQWifV
@michaelshawbond @JohnKubie @hugospiers @TrendsCognSci @esolomon @PNASNews The same argument was played out in the 1990s in relation to perceived object shape. The spectrum there is from ordinal depth relations up to Euclidean shape. Again, at the most calibrated end, impossible to distinguish representations empirically. https://t.co/Gqn1kjMmlm 5/9
RT @da5nsy: Neither great for old papers though. So, clicking through the @scite link (takes me here: https://t.co/R6303uRKis) shows me sn…
The one of special interest is the one marked as 'supporting' (https://t.co/3IXx2hmC24). It seems like @scite use a black box to make these distinctions, but it’s enough to make me actually skim the paper and see what they’re saying.
Neither great for old papers though. So, clicking through the @scite link (takes me here: https://t.co/R6303uRKis) shows me snippets of text from the papers which cite this paper.
Here's the paper I'm reading: https://t.co/3IXx2hmC24 for demonstration. Since I’m presenting this as a live(ish) demo, there are going to be some dead ends (things I try that don’t work), but that’s fine because that’s life.
DG
AK
M
MR
高た
SI
GL
GG
JC
A
Y都
AG
CL
MP
PO
S