Collinear facilitation in color vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detection of a luminance-defined Gabor is improved by two high contrast, aligned, flanking Gabors, an effect termed collinear facilitation. We investigate whether this facilitation also occurs for isoluminant chromatic stimuli, and whether it can occur for chromatic targets with luminance flanks and vice versa. We measured collinear facilitation for Gabor stimuli (0.75 cpd, 1 octave bandwidth) of three different contrast types: achromatic, red-green that isolates the L/M-cone opponent mechanism, and blue-yellow that isolates the S-cone opponent mechanism. Three conditions were investigated: (1) target and flanks all of the same contrast type and spatial phase; (2) target and flanks of the same contrast type but opposite phases (0 degrees and 180 degrees ); and (3) target and flanks of different contrast types (chromatic with achromatic contrast) and two opposite phase combinations. We find that a similar degree of collinear facilitation occurs for the isoluminant chromatic stimuli as for the achromatic stimuli, and all exhibit phase dependency. Facilitation did not occur, however, between chromatic and achromatic target and flanking stimuli. This suggests that at the level of collinear facilitation, the chromatic and the achromatic postreceptoral mechanisms have their own spatial interactions that are segregated from one another.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".