Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

The paper claims that the visually perceived vertical is the half-angle of the circular mean of the scene's orientation votes, and that the same vote-sum read as sum and difference across hemifields also explains perceived eye level.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 12:01 UTC pith:ETCNJ4SB

load-bearing objection VPV half is a genuine closed-form unification with honest quantitative contact; the VPEL half is an explicitly assumed extension, and the decisive experiments are still open. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19681 v1 pith:ETCNJ4SB submitted 2026-07-22 q-bio.NC stat.AP

Perceived vertical and eye level as one orientation order parameter: a closed-form account of the Li-Matin rules for egocentric space

A. Y. Shavit (Hunter College , the Graduate Center , City University of New York) This is my paper
classification q-bio.NC stat.AP
keywords visually perceived verticalperceived eye levelorientation order parameterdoubled-angle circular meanLi-Matin rulesstructure tensorpopulation vectorsub-additive combination
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper tries to show that three empirical regularities of the visually perceived vertical — a single tilted line shifts it roughly one-for-one, several lines combine sub-additively, and symmetric tilts cancel — are not separate findings but closed-form consequences of one quantity: the first circular moment of the stimulus orientation distribution in the doubled-angle domain. Because orientation is an axis with no arrowhead, a circular-mean readout must work at twice the angle, so the proposed formula is the natural way to average orientations. If the account is right, the same order parameter, read as a sum and a difference across the two visual hemifields, yields perceived vertical and perceived eye level, unifying two research lines under one image-computable descriptor. The paper matches published 2-, 3-, and 4-line combination slopes using a single length-saturation function, with no per-configuration free parameters in the angles.

Core claim

The central claim is that the induced vertical is φ = ½ arg c₁, where c₁ is the first circular moment of the orientation-energy distribution taken at doubled angles: each line at orientation γ contributes a phasor at 2γ, weighted by its salience, and the readout is the direction of the sum, halved back. This is also the principal axis of the image structure tensor and an orientation population vector. The angle doubling is forced by the director symmetry of orientation (θ ≡ θ+π). From this single definition four rules follow: unit-slope tracking for one line, exact cancellation of a symmetric pair, phasor-additive combination that reduces to linear averaging at small tilts, and a |cos 2θ| st

What carries the argument

The order parameter φ = ½ arg c₁ with c₁ = ∫ E(θ) e^{i2θ} dθ — equivalently the principal axis of the orientation structure tensor or the population vector of cosine-tuned orientation units. Orientation is a director, so the readout must use doubled angles; the first circular moment is the unique circular mean respecting that symmetry. The normalization by c₀ = ∫ E dθ produces the sub-additive combination law, and the length-saturation function S(ℓ) from the original data sets all magnitudes.

Load-bearing premise

The eye-level half of the account rests on the assumption that orientation signals are pooled within each hemifield and then combined across the midline without further renormalization — if pooling were global, or each hemifield normalized before combination, the VPV/VPEL dissociation would not follow.

What would settle it

Measure the induced vertical for a symmetric pair of lines held at equal tilt about vertical while sweeping the half-separation θ from 0 to 90 degrees: the model predicts strength proportional to |cos 2θ| with a null at exactly 45 degrees and a reversal beyond; a plain averaging model predicts a flat, never-nulling effect.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The Li–Matin rules are signatures of any doubled-angle circular-mean readout, not independent empirical laws.
  • The same order parameter, read as hemifield sum and difference, explains the reversed integration rules for perceived eye level.
  • A symmetric pair about vertical should show a |cos 2θ| strength curve with a null at 45 degrees and a reversal beyond — a decisive, not-yet-run test.
  • Complete summation is refuted; combination slopes approach 1/n as inducers saturate, making 'the whole is less than the sum of its parts' quantitative.
  • A square frame has zero first-moment vertical; its residual rod-and-frame effect lives in the second harmonic, explaining the 90-degree periodicity and the 45-degree null.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the order parameter is the readout, natural scenes with a coherent oblique bias should produce larger induced vertical than balanced cardinal-dominated scenes; the paper notes the extension but does not test natural images.
  • The 45-degree null experiment would also distinguish pooled averaging from winner-take-all nonlinear readouts, a discriminator that generalizes beyond this paradigm.
  • Because the first-order readout is position-blind, adding an eccentricity weighting kernel would yield quantitative predictions for peripheral inducers; the paper flags this as future work.
  • The sum/difference structure suggests individual differences in frame dependence are a single gain applied to an unchanged order parameter, testable by measuring both tasks in the same observers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the three Li–Matin rules for induced visual vertical (VPV) are closed-form consequences of a single order parameter: φ = ½ arg c1, c1 = ∫ E(θ)e^{i2θ}dθ = κ̂1ΣA_j e^{i2γ_j} (Eq. 1), the first circular moment of the orientation distribution in the doubled-angle domain. R1 (unit-slope tracking), R2 (symmetric cancellation), and R3 (phasor-additive combination) follow immediately; R4 gives a |cos 2θ| strength law. The combination coefficients for 2-, 3-, and 4-line stimuli are matched with mean |Δ|=0.030 using a single length-saturation function taken from Li–Matin's own fit. The paper then extends the same order parameter to perceived eye level (VPEL) by reading the two hemifield signals as a sum and a difference, and reports a confirmatory re-analysis of 30-observer trial data. The paper contains explicit caveats that the VPEL step requires an additional structural assumption, that the long-line data cannot separate the model from simple averaging, and that the square-frame magnitude envelope is supplied by an auxiliary cardinal-anisotropy term.

Significance. If the VPV half is correct, the paper provides a clean unification: the induced vertical is the principal axis of the orientation structure tensor / population vector, and the Li–Matin rules are signatures of any doubled-angle circular mean. The derivations are exact and the paper is exemplary in stating what it cannot decide (long-line averaging, square-frame envelope, VPEL architecture). However, the title's stronger claim — that VPV and VPEL are one order parameter — is not established to the same standard: the VPEL sum/difference architecture is an additional postulate, and the confirmatory re-analysis was constructed to match it. The VPV quantitative fit also depends on an external length-saturation function rather than on Eq. (1) alone. The paper would be a solid theoretical contribution if the scope claims were aligned with the evidence and the VPEL architecture given a discriminating test.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.5 (Table 2; confirmatory re-analysis)] The VPV/VPEL extension in §5.5 rests on an explicit structural assumption: c0 pooling is per hemifield, and the two hemifield signals are combined as s_L+s_R and s_R−s_L without further renormalization. The paper correctly flags that 'nothing in §2 forces normalisation to stop at the midline,' but the confirmatory re-analysis cannot establish this assumption. The four stimuli (1L, 1R, 2P, 2S) were selected so that the sum/difference architecture predicts exactly the observed signs and nulls; the only out-of-sample quantity is the cross-pool discount k1≈0.84–0.90, a single scalar that does not discriminate hemifield-stopped pooling from global pooling or per-hemifield renormalization, and for which no uncertainty is reported. Because the title/abstract claim that VPV and VPEL are 'one order parameter' depends on this assumption, the paper should either add a test that discriminates the po
  2. [§5.1–§5.2 (Eq. 1; k1 = S(nℓ)/nS(ℓ))] The text attributes the predicted averaging slope k1 = 1/n to the c0 normalization of the first moment, saying 'The c0 denominator is “the whole is less than the sum of its parts.”' But φ = ½ arg c1 is unchanged by dividing c1 by c0, and for n aligned inducers arg c1 = 2γ for every n. The slope k1 = S(nℓ)/nS(ℓ) in §5.2 is therefore not a consequence of the normalized first moment; it is an additional length-saturation assumption taken from Li and Matin's own Fig. 5. As written, the derivation suggests that Eq. (1) plus c0 normalization predicts the combination table, whereas the table's magnitudes are actually fixed by an external scalar law. Please correct this attribution and state explicitly that the 1/n law in the saturated limit is a property of the length-saturation model, not of Eq. (1) alone.
  3. [§5.4 and §5.6 (c2 and cardinal anisotropy)] For the square frame, c2 has constant magnitude |c2| = 2, so the non-monotonic rod-and-frame magnitude envelope is supplied by an unterived cardinal-anisotropy term peaking near 24.6° against the observed 15–20° (a 5–9° overshoot). The paper acknowledges this, but it means the square-frame account is not a closed-form prediction of the order parameter; it is the order parameter plus a separate cardinal-reference model. Because the square is the classic rod-and-frame stimulus and §5.4 presents c2 as the resolution of where the square's energy resides, the scope of the 'closed-form' claim should be stated even more prominently. Together with the hemifield assumption and the length-saturation function, this means the full 'one order parameter' story is actually the core c1 plus at least three auxiliary structures. This does not affect the 1- and 2-line c1 results, but it is central to how t
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §5.5] The phrase 'the 30-observer trial data confirm the predicted sub-additive cross-field combination' overstates the evidential value of a re-analysis whose signs and nulls were constructed to match the sum/difference assumption. Consider 'are consistent with' or explicitly noting that only the quantitative discount is out-of-sample.
  2. [§5.4] The acknowledged 5–9° overshoot of the rod-and-frame peak should appear in the abstract or conclusions, not only in the body, to avoid the impression that the square-frame prediction is exact.
  3. [§7 / closing verse] The closing poetic stanza is unusual for a journal article. Consider moving or removing it; it does not affect the scientific content.
  4. [§4 / novelty discussion] The statement 'we are not aware of a prior account that explicitly formulates the induced visual vertical as this doubled-angle first moment' is well hedged, but given the extensive related work already cited (Dakin & Watt 1997; Tzvetanov 2012; Kass & Witkin 1987), the novelty paragraph could be tightened to emphasize that the contribution is the transfer to Li–Matin's specific rules, not the operator itself.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

VPEL sum/difference signs are constructed to match the 2013 data, and the combination-table match rides on an S(ℓ) fit pooled over the same configurations; the VPV angular core remains independent.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§5.1, Table 1 and Fig. 8 text]
    "Because its constants a, b, ℓ0 are fixed by Li and Matin’s own mass-action length fit (their Fig. 5, strength vs total inducing length pooled over all configurations; none refitted per configuration here), the length model matches all eight of the least-squares slopes printed in their Fig. 8 to within ±0.06— mean absolute deviation 0.030, versus 0.145 for the bare averaging limit 1/n."

    The three length constants are described as fixed by a fit 'pooled over all configurations'—i.e., the same 2-, 3-, and 4-line data from which the eight k1 slopes in Fig. 8 are derived. The model value k1=S(nℓ)/nS(ℓ) then 'matches' those same slopes, so the comparison is an in-sample fit of a three-parameter function, not an independent prediction. 'No per-configuration free parameters' is literally true but does not make the comparison out-of-sample: the single length function was globally fit to the target ensemble. The reported mean |Δ|=0.030 therefore reflects the smoothness of a fit to the very data being predicted, not independent confirmation of the order-parameter readout.

  2. self definitional [§5.5, Table 2 and Confirmatory re-analysis]
    "This is an explicit structural assumption— that the c0 pooling is within-hemifield and that the two hemifields are then combined across the midline without further renormalisation ... nothing in §2 forces normalisation to stop at the midline; the justification is the projective-geometry argument below (roll vs pitch) and, ultimately, the fit to the 2013 data. ... The qualitative signs and nulls are, in fairness, what the sum/difference assumption was constructed to capture; the genuinely out-of-sample fact is quantitative— the two-line conditions combine sub-additively in each active channel,"

    The VPEL/VPV dissociations—same VPV sign from either field, opposite VPEL signs, 2P→VPV only, 2S→VPEL only—follow entirely from the definitions VPV∝s_L+s_R and VPEL∝s_R−s_L. Those definitions are not derived from Eq. (1); they are an added structural assumption whose stated justification is 'ultimately, the fit to the 2013 data.' The re-analysis then reports the signs and nulls of that same dataset as 'confirming' the architecture, which is a definitional reduction: the data were used to build the assumption whose consequences are then presented as recovered. Only the single quantitative k1≈0.84–0.90 discount is genuinely out-of-sample, and it does not test the midline-stopping rule itself.

full rationale

The VPV angular core is not circular: Eq. (1) is a fixed, parameter-free operator; R1 and R2 are algebraic consequences; R4 is a forward zero-parameter prediction; and the phasor-addition form of R3 is genuinely tested against published two-line data. The paper is also candid that R1–R3 are 'signatures of any such readout, not separate findings,' which limits their explanatory weight but is not itself a circularity. The circularity is concentrated in two places. First, the quantitative combination-table claim: the paper says S(ℓ)'s constants are fixed by a length fit 'pooled over all configurations,' and then presents the eight k1 slopes as matched with 'no per-configuration free parameters.' If, as stated, the pooled fit includes the multi-line configurations, the 'predicted' table is an in-sample description by a three-parameter curve rather than an independent confirmation. Second, the VPEL half of the title: VPV∝s_L+s_R and VPEL∝s_R−s_L is an explicit structural assumption, not derived from §2; the paper says its justification is 'ultimately, the fit to the 2013 data,' and then the qualitative signs/nulls of that same dataset are reported as recovered/confirmed. The paper honestly flags this ('in fairness, what the sum/difference assumption was constructed to capture'), but the reduction is real. Because the VPV angular core and the open R4 null test retain independent falsifiable content, the paper as a whole is only partially circular rather than wholly so.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 3 invented entities

The mathematical core is exact: given Eq. 1, R1–R4 follow. What the paper does not pay for upstream: the circular-mean readout assumption (imported, not evidenced for VPV), the fitted mass-action length law carrying all magnitude predictions, the hemifield-stopped pooling assumption behind the eye-level claim, and the unterived cardinal term behind the rod-and-frame envelope. No new physical entities are postulated; the invented structures are processing-level (two-level pooling, cardinal term, dual mass-action channel) with no independent falsifiable handle outside the paper's own re-analysis of the author's earlier data.

free parameters (4)
  • Mass-action length function constants a, b, ℓ₀ = a = 0.03, b = 0.25, ℓ₀ = 31.9°
    S(ℓ) = a + b(1−e^{−ℓ/ℓ₀}) from Li & Matin (2005b) Fig. 5; carries all combination-slope magnitudes k₁ = S(nℓ)/nS(ℓ) (§5.1–5.2). Fitted by Li & Matin to their own length data, not refitted per configuration, and not independently derived.
  • Visual weight k_V (with k_B = 1 − k_V) = slope of setting-vs-orientation, per observer (not predicted)
    §5.6 bridge Eq. 2: bias = k_V φ; imported from Matin & Fox (1989) and effectively fit to each observer's settings; converts the order parameter into measured degrees of bias.
  • Cross-pool discount ≈ 0.9 = 0.90 (VPV 2P); 0.84 (VPEL 2S)
    §5.5: cross-hemifield combination coefficients measured from the author's 2013 trial data and adopted as the '≈0.9 cross-pool discount' in the two-level pooling description — measured after the model was constructed, so it is support but not a parameter-free test.
  • Effective salience Aⱼ = unspecified (contrast/length/energy after early interactions)
    §2: Aⱼ are free scalar weights; the paper explicitly declines to specify the front end that sets them ('the parameter-free claim is for the angles, not the weights'), so any pooled-readout model can be accommodated by choice of Aⱼ.
axioms (7)
  • standard math Orientation is a director (θ ≡ θ + π); a readout invariant to this symmetry must operate in the doubled-angle domain
    §2: axial statistics (Mardia & Jupp) and nematic order parameters (de Gennes & Prost); a mathematical fact, not in dispute.
  • domain assumption The readout for induced vertical is the normalised circular mean (population vector) of the orientation-energy distribution
    §2 'given only that the readout is a circular mean' — the load-bearing premise. Imported from perceived-mean-orientation work (Dakin & Watt 1997; Webb et al. 2010) and population decoding, but not independently evidenced for VPV; alternative decoders (MAP with learned priors, winner-take-all) would not yield R1–R4.
  • domain assumption Stimulus orientation energy factorises as E(θ) = Σ Aⱼ κ(θ − γⱼ) with even, π-periodic κ (κ̂₁ > 0)
    §2: standard line-stimulus decomposition; κ drops out of φ so this is mostly harmless; Aⱼ are free (see free parameters).
  • ad hoc to paper c₀-normalisation stops at the hemifield midline; the two hemifields are then combined across the midline without further renormalisation (sum for VPV, difference for VPEL)
    §5.5: 'nothing in §2 forces normalisation to stop at the midline'; load-bearing for the entire VPEL half of the title claim; justified only by a projective-geometry analogy and by fit to the author's own 2013 data.
  • domain assumption Induction magnitude saturates with total inducing length as S(ℓ) = a + b(1−e^{−ℓ/ℓ₀})
    §5.2: imported from Li & Matin's empirical length fit; the paper's own sign test (6/8, p = 0.29) shows it does not statistically beat bare 1/n averaging on the eight slopes.
  • ad hoc to paper The rod-and-frame magnitude envelope is supplied by an unterived cardinal-anisotropy term peaking near 24.6°
    §5.4/§5.6: since |c₂| is constant in tilt, the observed 15–20° peak requires an extra term; described ('cardinal-prior effect left as such rather than fitted away') but not derived or separately evidenced.
  • domain assumption Final setting is linear fusion of visual and body/gravity estimates, k_V + k_B = 1 (Eq. 2)
    §5.6: Matin & Fox (1989) linear model; k_V is effectively a per-observer fitted slope, so the linkage from order parameter to measured bias is not prediction-free.
invented entities (3)
  • Two-level pooling architecture (hemifield-stopped c₀ pooling + cross-midline sum/difference) no independent evidence
    purpose: Generates VPV ∝ s_L + s_R and VPEL ∝ s_R − s_L from one order parameter
    §5.5: stated as an explicit assumption; its only evidence is the fit to the author's 2013 data, whose qualitative structure was constructed to match; the out-of-sample part is the 0.84–0.90 discount only.
  • Cardinal-anisotropy / cardinal-reference term (peak ≈ 24.6°) no independent evidence
    purpose: Supplies the rod-and-frame magnitude envelope that |c₂| (constant in tilt) cannot
    §5.4/§5.6: an underived component introduced to cover the observed 15–20° peak and the 4-cycle amplitude coefficient; no independent falsifiable handle is proposed.
  • 'Mass-action' scalar length mechanism as a second explanatory channel no independent evidence
    purpose: Explains residual induction of orthogonal pairs and the square frame where c₁ = 0 identically
    §5.1/§5.4: whenever the first moment vanishes, the account invokes this separate mechanism; anchored only to Li–Matin's empirical length function, giving the framework two channels (directional first moment + scalar mass action) and thereby extra flexibility.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26119 in / 26590 out tokens · 258882 ms · 2026-08-01T12:01:55.412781+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The visually perceived vertical is biased by the orientation content of the visual field. Li and Matin (2005a, 2005b) reported three regularities of this induced vertical (VPV): a roll-tilted peripheral line shifts it about linearly with orientation; two lines combine about linearly; and symmetric tilts cancel. We show all three follow from one principle. The induced vertical is half the argument of the first circular moment of stimulus orientation in the doubled-angle domain, $\phi=\frac{1}{2}\arg c_1$ with $c_1=\sum_j A_j e^{i2\gamma_j}$ (each line counted at twice its angle). Equivalently it is the principal axis of the orientation structure tensor, or an orientation population vector; we call it the orientation order-parameter model (PLUMB). The angle-doubling is forced: orientation is a director ($\theta\equiv\theta+\pi$), so a circular-mean readout must be the doubled-angle one, and linear tracking, combination, and cancellation are signatures of any such readout, not separate findings. Li and Matin's 2-, 3-, and 4-line combination coefficients are then closely matched with no per-configuration free parameters in the angles; the magnitudes come from one mass-action length function (their Fig. 5, three constants). The data refute complete summation but do not separate the model from simple averaging for long lines; the decisive parameter-free tests are the short-line regime and a $|\cos 2\theta|$ strength law with a null at $45^\circ$. Read as a sum and a difference across the two hemifields, the same order parameter yields perceived vertical and eye level, recovering the reversed rules of Shavit, Li and Matin (2013); their 30-observer trial data confirm the predicted sub-additive cross-field combination. The account is stimulus-side and image-computable, linking induced vertical and eye level to classical image-orientation descriptors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19681 by A. Y. Shavit (Hunter College, City University of New York), the Graduate Center.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The visual task (after Shavit, Li, & Matin 2013, Fig. 1): a long roll-tilted line, eccentric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: From a line to a vote — the induced vertical without complex numbers. (i) A line has no [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The induced vertical as the first circular moment in the doubled-angle domain. R1: a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The linear combination law (R3) is the small-tilt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: One quantity, three views. All three panels are computed from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Why the whole is less than the sum of its parts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (VPV-1). Induced-VPV combination coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (VPV-2). Goodness of fit for all eight least-squares slopes of Li and Matin (2005a). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The square frame: the first moment vanishes, the second survives. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Where the first moment cancels, a higher harmonic survives — the equilateral triplet. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: One cue, two readouts. Across the four stimuli, VPV is the sum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: One order parameter, two readouts on the doubled-angle circle. The two field-votes span [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The decisive forward test (not yet run). Open a symmetric roll-tilted pair from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H., & Bergen, J

    Adelson, E. H., & Bergen, J. R. (1985). Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion.Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 2(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.2.000284

    doi:10.1364/josaa.2.000284 1985

  2. [2]

    Alberts, B. B. G. T., de Brouwer, A. J., Selen, L. P. J., & Medendorp, W. P. (2016). A Bayesian account of visual–vestibular interactions in the rod-and-frame task.eNeuro, 3(5), ENEURO.0093-16.2016. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0093-16.2016

    work page doi:10.1523/eneuro.0093-16.2016 2016

  3. [3]

    C., & Wenderoth, P

    Beh, H. C., & Wenderoth, P. M. (1972). The effect of variation of frame shape on the angular function of the rod-and-frame illusion.Perception & Psychophysics, 11(1), 35–37. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212679 19

    work page doi:10.3758/bf03212679 1972

  4. [4]

    C., Wenderoth, P

    Beh, H. C., Wenderoth, P. M., & Purcell, A. T. (1971). The angular function of a rod-and-frame illusion.Perception & Psychophysics, 9(4), 353–355. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208694

    work page doi:10.3758/bf03208694 1971

  5. [5]

    Bigün, J., & Granlund, G. H. (1987). Optimal orientation detection of linear symmetry.Proc. ICCV, 433–438

    1987

  6. [6]

    Dakin, S. C. (2001). Information limit on the spatial integration of local ori- entation signals.Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 18(5), 1016–1026. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.18.001016 [perceived mean orientation as pooled circular mean, §4]

    work page doi:10.1364/josaa.18.001016 2001

  7. [7]

    centroid

    Dakin, S. C., & Watt, R. J. (1997). The computation of orientation statistics from visual texture.Vision Research, 37(22), 3181–3192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00133-8 [winning “centroid” model= 1 2 arg P p ei2θ, no free parameters — the readout operator itself, §4]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00133-8 1997

  8. [8]

    G., & Prost, J

    de Gennes, P. G., & Prost, J. (1993).The Physics of Liquid Crystals(2nd ed.). Oxford: Claren- don Press. [nematic order parameter / director, §2]

    1993

  9. [9]

    T., Jenkin, M

    Dyde, R. T., Jenkin, M. R., & Harris, L. R. (2006). The subjective visual ver- tical and the perceptual upright.Experimental Brain Research, 173(4), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-006-0405-y [direction-domain cue-vector-sum SVV — a dis- placed incumbent, §4/§6]

    work page doi:10.1007/s00221-006-0405-y 2006

  10. [10]

    P., Schwartz, A

    Georgopoulos, A. P., Schwartz, A. B., & Kettner, R. E. (1986). Neuronal population coding of movement direction.Science, 233(4771), 1416–1419. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3749885

    doi:10.1126/science.3749885 1986

  11. [11]

    J., & Radner, M

    Gibson, J. J., & Radner, M. (1937). Adaptation, after-effect and contrast in the perception of tilted lines. I. Quantitative studies.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(5), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059826

    work page doi:10.1037/h0059826 1937

  12. [12]

    R., Landy, M

    Girshick, A. R., Landy, M. S., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2011). Cardinal rules: visual orientation perception reflects knowledge of environmental statistics.Nature Neuroscience, 14(7), 926–932. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2831

    work page doi:10.1038/nn.2831 2011

  13. [13]

    Hartley, A. A. (1982). The roles of axes of symmetry in orientation illusions.Perception & Psychophysics, 31(4), 367–375. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202661

    work page doi:10.3758/bf03202661 1982

  14. [14]

    Jazayeri, M., & Movshon, J. A. (2006). Optimal representation of sensory information by neu- ral populations.Nature Neuroscience, 9(5), 690–696. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1691 [PMID 16617339; optimal ML decoding vs classical vector-average, §4]

    work page doi:10.1038/nn1691 2006

  15. [15]

    Kass, M., & Witkin, A. (1987). Analyzing oriented patterns.Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 37(3), 362–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/0734-189X(87)90043-0 [doubled- angle first-moment (structure-tensor) orientation flow, §4]

    work page doi:10.1016/0734-189x(87)90043-0 1987

  16. [16]

    Knutsson, H. (1989). Representing local structure using tensors.Proc. 6th Scandinavian Conf. on Image Analysis (SCIA), 244–251

    1989

  17. [17]

    Li, W., & Matin, L. (2005a). The rod-and-frame effect: the whole is less than the sum of its parts.Perception, 34(6), 699–716. [multiline combination data used in §5] 20

  18. [18]

    Li, W., & Matin, L. (2005b). Visually perceived vertical (VPV): induced changes in orientation by 1-line and 2-line roll-tilted and pitched visual fields.Vision Research, 45(17), 2037–2057. [companion 1-/2-line orientation & length functions]

    2037

  19. [19]

    V., & Jupp, P

    Mardia, K. V., & Jupp, P. E. (2000).Directional Statistics.Chichester: Wiley

    2000

  20. [20]

    J., & Solomon, J

    Mareschal, I., Morgan, M. J., & Solomon, J. A. (2010). Cortical distance determines whether flankers cause crowding or the tilt illusion.Journal of Vision, 10(8):13, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.8.13

    work page doi:10.1167/10.8.13 2010

  21. [21]

    Marshak, W., & Sekuler, R. (1979). Mutual repulsion between moving visual targets.Science, 205(4413), 1399–1401. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.472756

    work page doi:10.1126/science.472756 1979

  22. [22]

    Matin, L., & Fox, C. R. (1989). Visually perceived eye level and perceived elevation of objects: linearly additive influences from visual field pitch and from gravity.Vision Research, 29(3), 315–324. [linear visual/body-weight modelkV +k B = 1, §5.6]

    1989

  23. [23]

    Matin, L., & Li, W. (1994). Mirror symmetry and parallelism: two opposite rules for the identity transform in space perception and their unified treatment by the Great Circle Model. Spatial Vision, 8(4), 469–489. [roll→parallel / pitch→symmetric projective geometry, §5.5]

    1994

  24. [24]

    Matin, L., & Li, W. (1995). Multimodal basis for egocentric spatial localization and orientation. Journal of Vestibular Research, 5(6), 499–518. PMID 8589859

    1995

  25. [25]

    Matin, L., & Li, W. (1999). Averaging and summation of influences on visually perceived eye level between two long lines differing in pitch or roll-tilt.Vision Research, 39(2), 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00059-5 [PMID 10326138; VPEL combination, §5.5]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(98)00059-5 1999

  26. [26]

    Matin, L., & Li, W. (2001). Neural model for processing the influence of visual orientation on visually perceived eye level (VPEL).Vision Research, 41, 2845–2872. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00150-X [PMID 11701180; four-channel neural model of VPEL — local V1 orientation→global higher-level readout, §5.5]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(01)00150-x 2001

  27. [27]

    E., Kalesinskas, L., Palumbo, R

    Orendorff, E. E., Kalesinskas, L., Palumbo, R. T., & Albert, M. V. (2016). Bayesian analysis of perceived eye level.Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 10, 135

    2016

  28. [28]

    J., & Dayan, P

    Schwartz, O., Sejnowski, T. J., & Dayan, P. (2009). Perceptual organization in the tilt illusion. Journal of Vision, 9(4):19, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.4.19 [context-inducedperceived tilt decoded by the population vector, §4]

    work page doi:10.1167/9.4.19 2009

  29. [29]

    Y., & Leopold, P

    Shavit, A. Y., & Leopold, P. E. (2023). Spatial statistics of images from the player’s point of view in sport environments. InProceedings of the 10th MathSport International Conference (pp. 119–131). Budapest: Corvinus University of Budapest. [companion image-statistics work]

    2023

  30. [30]

    Y., Li, W., & Matin, L

    Shavit, A. Y., Li, W., & Matin, L. (2004). Influences of global and local orientations of line segments on perceived eye level. Poster, 45th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Minneapolis, MN (Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society, Vol. 9). [conference presentation]

    2004

  31. [31]

    Y., Li, W., & Matin, L

    Shavit, A. Y., Li, W., & Matin, L. (2008). The influences of array orientation and of line orien- tation on visually perceived eye level (VPEL) are modulated by line length and array length. Journal of Vision, 8(6), 457 (VSS abstract; article 2137157). https://doi.org/10.1167/8.6.457 21

    work page doi:10.1167/8.6.457 2008

  32. [32]

    Y., Li, W., & Matin, L

    Shavit, A. Y., Li, W., & Matin, L. (2009). Common processing for two perceptual tasks in different spatial dimensions in response to identical visual stimuli.Journal of Vision, 9(8) (VSS 2009 abstract; theN= 30study later published as Shavit, Li, & Matin, 2013). [vol 9(8) confirmed; exactarticleno./DOItobeverifiedonjov.arvojournals.org—someindexesmis-date...

    2009

  33. [33]

    Y., Li, W., & Matin, L

    Shavit, A. Y., Li, W., & Matin, L. (2013). Individual differences in perceived elevation and verticality: evidence of a common visual process.Multisensory Research, 26(3), 205–239. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-00002413

    work page doi:10.1163/22134808-00002413 2013

  34. [34]

    Y., Li, W., & Matin, L

    Shavit, A. Y., Li, W., & Matin, L. (2026). Global and local influences on egocentric visual perceptions of elevation and of verticality [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/b3cu9

    work page doi:10.31234/osf.io/b3cu9 2026

  35. [35]

    Y., Li, W., Semanek, D., & Matin, L

    Shavit, A. Y., Li, W., Semanek, D., & Matin, L. (2004). Individual differences in sensitivity to induction-by-line: covariation between perceived elevation (VPEL) and perceived vertical (VPV).Journal of Vision, 4(8), 383 (VSS abstract). https://doi.org/10.1167/4.8.383

    work page doi:10.1167/4.8.383 2004

  36. [36]

    L., & Zoccolotti, P

    Spinelli, D., Antonucci, G., Martelli, M. L., & Zoccolotti, P. (2001). Large errors in the per- ception of verticality are generated by luminance borders (integrated across space) not by subjective borders.Perception, 30(2), 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3070 [luminance- vs subjective-border rod-and-frame verticality; the square’sc2 luminance-border t...

    work page doi:10.1068/p3070 2001

  37. [37]

    J., Yoon, H.-J., Arshad, Q., Medendorp, W

    Tian, J., Kim, M. J., Yoon, H.-J., Arshad, Q., Medendorp, W. P., & Kheradmand, A. (2025). Bayesian estimation of sensory priors in human spatial orientation.Journal of Neurophysiology, 134, 1702–1713. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00223.2025 [PMID 40691060; recent Bayesian SVV incumbent, §6]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Tzvetanov, T. (2012). A single theoretical framework for circular features processing in humans: orientation and direction of motion compared.Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 28. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00028 [doubled-angle circular-feature coding with vector- average decoding, §4]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  39. [39]

    S., Ledgeway, T., & McGraw, P

    Webb, B. S., Ledgeway, T., & McGraw, P. V. (2010). Relating spatial and temporal ori- entation pooling to population decoding solutions in human vision.Vision Research, 50(22), 2274–2283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.04.019 [perceived global orientation as vector- average population read-out, §4]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.04.019 2010

  40. [40]

    Wei, X.-X., & Stocker, A. A. (2015). A Bayesian observer model constrained by effi- cient coding can explain ‘anti-Bayesian’ percepts.Nature Neuroscience, 18(10), 1509–1517. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4105

    doi:10.1038/nn.4105 2015

  41. [41]

    Wenderoth, P., & Beh, H. (1977). Component analysis of orientation illusions.Perception, 6(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1068/p060057

    work page doi:10.1068/p060057 1977

  42. [42]

    Does the orthogonal pair hide a frame?

    Wenderoth, P., & Curthoys, I. (1974). On the non-additivity of visual tilt illusions.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26(4), 549–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747408400446 [two-line tilt-illusion nonadditivity — caveat to linear superposition, §5.4] 22 In awe of the world’s deep wonder And life’s essential light Grateful to pursue the bea...

    work page doi:10.1080/14640747408400446 1974