As this is my final PhD paper to be published, I want to give a special shout-out to my supervisors, @willjharrison.bsky.social and Jason. There’s no way to do them justice in 300 characters, so I’ve attached an excerpt from my thesis acknowledgements that still rings true today.

11/11

If we distort the patches (e.g., by thresholding pixel values or reducing the patch to edges), we can still predict participants' responses.

In this case, after heavily altering the pixel values, only the structural similarity predictor remained significant.

7/11

We fit a GLMM to participants' responses and found they could be explained by assuming participants selected the patch most similar to the standard.

Here, average participant responses are the datapoints and solid lines show the GLMM predictions.

5/11

The standard patch was always taken from the centre of a broader photo, with the target taken from one of 33 possible locations that varied in distance and azimuth offset from the standard.

Note: participants were never told about these conditions and never saw the full photos

3/11

We had participants tell us which of two image patches they thought was most likely to belong to the same scene as a preceding standard.

One patch (the target) always came from the same broader photograph as the standard, and the other (the foil) came from an entirely different photograph.

2/11

Overall biases didn’t shift significantly in response to the adaptors. Remember the standard white bar shown with comment #3? Its orientation relative to the adaptor is plotted on the x-axis. We also looked at whether the biases changed over the course of the session - short answer: nope.

7/10

In session 2, participants saw the first half of Casablanca - we assigned them to experience one of the four potential adaptor orientations above for that session. The movie was shown in 30 second clips, separated by 5 trials of the same perceptual task as in session 1.

4/10

The study itself had participants come in for three sessions - in the first, we just got their baseline performance at our perceptual task: is the central grating tilted to the right or left of the peripheral standard white bar?

3/10

The movie itself was filtered frame by frame to have contrast at a specified adaptor orientation at low spatial frequencies. We completed this process four times, so we could test different adaptor orientations (0, 45, 90, and 135).

2/10

That's a wrap on ECVP in Mainz - massive thank you to the organisers and helpers who put on such a great conference. Looking forward to Bournemouth!

#ecvp2025 @ecvp.bsky.social

The Flemingos are back in action for ECVP this week in Mainz with talks, posters, and even a keynote from our fearless leader. We're all very much looking forward to this year's program! 🦩

#ecvp2025 @ecvp.bsky.social

Huge thanks to the organisers of the joint APCV/EPC conference last week - was wonderful getting the opportunity to catch up on all the awesome work going on closer to home @expsyanz.bsky.social #EPC2025

Stoked to be back in Aus! Down in Sydney this week for the joint meeting of APCV and EPC. @expsyanz.bsky.social

I'll be presenting my talk on Thursday at 3:30pm in stream 2 (Recognising objects and people): The key features underlying superordinate
object classifications 😎

The Flemingos had a glorious time presenting at VSS, and are grateful to those who came along to chat with us about our work and fanny packs 🦩 #VSS2025 @vssmtg.bsky.social @gialdegheri.bsky.social

We're excited to have almost the whole flamboyance of Flemingos at VSS this week - come along and say hi! Our presentation times are in the attached pic 🦩👀 #VSS2025 @vssmtg.bsky.social
@gialdegheri.bsky.social