MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970817082 · doi:10.1037/1196-1961.62.3.150

The magnitude of binocular disparity modulates search time for targets defined by a conjunction of depth and colour.

2008· article· en· W1970817082 on OpenAlexaff
S de la Rosa, Giampaolo Moraglia, Bruce A. Schneider

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBinocular disparityConjunction (astronomy)StereoscopyStereopsisPartition (number theory)Plane (geometry)Magnitude (astronomy)Depth perceptionFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer visionGeometryPsychologyComputer sciencePerceptionPhysicsCombinatoricsAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nakayama and Silverman (1986) proposed that, when searching for a target defined by a conjunction of color and stereoscopic depth, observers partition 3D space into separate depth planes and then rapidly search each such plane in turn, thereby turning a conjunctive search into a "feature" search. In their study, they found, consistent with their hypothesis, shallow search slopes when searching depth planes separated by large binocular disparities. Here, the authors investigated whether the search slope depends upon the extent of the stereoscopically induced separation between the planes to be searched (i.e., upon the magnitude of the binocular disparity. The obtained slope shows that (1) a rapid search only occurs with disparities greater than 6 min of arc, a value that vastly exceeds the stereo threshold, and that (2) the steepness of this slope increases in a major way at lower disparities. The ability to implement the search mode envisaged by Nakayama and Silverman is thus clearly limited to large disparities; less efficient search strategies are mandated by lower disparity values, as under such conditions items from one depth plane may be more likely to "intrude" upon the other.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentaleSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207