MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974973699 · doi:10.1167/7.1.9

Temporal aspects of orientation pooling using visual noise stimuli

2007· article· en· W1974973699 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole D. Anderson, Kathryn M. Murphy, David G. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)Orientation (vector space)PerceptionPsychophysicsPoolingComputer scienceNoise (video)Detection theorySummationPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionDetectorMathematicsPsychologyCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceTelecommunicationsStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous psychophysical studies have shown that oriented signals are pooled over space to support better perceptual performance. We have investigated whether oriented signals may also be pooled over time. Using an orientation-in-noise paradigm, the threshold to discriminate large orientation differences was measured as the minimum amount of signal required to discriminate an oriented stimulus from unoriented noise. Discrimination thresholds were better with dynamic stimuli, containing multiple independent samples over time, than with static stimuli presented for an equal duration. Thresholds for dynamic stimuli showed gradual improvement from very brief (12 ms) to remarkably long presentation times (>4 s). Spatial integration of orientation signals is very efficient and can be understood in terms of a model based on signal detection theory, with performance limited by early and late stages of intrinsic noise. The nature of temporal integration is different, however, and is more consistent with probability summation of the outputs from low-level orientation detectors operating at a very brief timescale but whose outputs can be combined over a very long duration to yield better perceptual performance.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207