MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964346760 · doi:10.1159/000314284

A Taxonomy of Different Forms of Visual Motion Detection and Their Underlying Neural Mechanisms

2010· review· en· W1964346760 on OpenAlexaff
Barrie J. Frost

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Behavior and Evolution · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMotion (physics)Computer visionMotion perceptionBiological motionCommunicationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple taxonomy of different forms of visual motion is presented to show that there may be a hierarchical system of processing of visual motion in the brain, and that this is first split into self-produced motion and object motion, and then further into various forms of animate and inanimate motion patterns. Further refinement results in specific mechanisms which stem from specific demands of an animal's life-style and ecological niche. Examples are presented of the underlying neural mechanisms for some of these different classes of visual motion processing, such as simple object motion, looming and time to collision, and stereopsis from the object motion processing subsystem. In contrast, other examples of the neural mechanisms from the self-produced motion system include simple canonical flow field analysis, translation and rotation for guiding action in 3D space, and motion parallax for depth perception. The taxonomy thus provides a framework that may guide future research on how the brain detects and processes other dynamic visual patterns.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain Behavior and EvolutionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207