A two-stage model of orientation integration for Battenberg-modulated micropatterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The visual system pools information from local samples to calculate textural properties. We used a novel stimulus to investigate how signals are combined to improve estimates of global orientation. Stimuli were 29 × 29 element arrays of 4 c/deg log Gabors, spaced 1° apart. A proportion of these elements had a coherent orientation (horizontal/vertical) with the remainder assigned random orientations. The observer's task was to identify the global orientation. The spatial configuration of the signal was modulated by a checkerboard pattern of square checks containing potential signal elements. The other locations contained either randomly oriented elements ("noise check") or were blank ("blank check"). The distribution of signal elements was manipulated by varying the size and location of the checks within a fixed-diameter stimulus. An ideal detector would only pool responses from potential signal elements. Humans did this for medium check sizes and for large check sizes when a signal was presented in the fovea. For small check sizes, however, the pooling occurred indiscriminately over relevant and irrelevant locations. For these check sizes, thresholds for the noise check and blank check conditions were similar, suggesting that the limiting noise is not induced by the response to the noise elements. The results are described by a model that filters the stimulus at the potential target orientations and then combines the signals over space in two stages. The first is a mandatory integration of local signals over a fixed area, limited by internal noise at each location. The second is a task-dependent combination of the outputs from the first stage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".