MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985795947 · doi:10.1163/156856803322552720

Backward masking is not required to elicit the central performance drop

2003· letter· en· W1985795947 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpatial Vision · 2003
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMasking (illustration)Oblique caseBackward maskingComputer sciencePsychologyComputer visionPhysicsOpticsArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyPerceptionNeuroscienceArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In some circumstances, texture discrimination performance peaks in the parafovea rather than at the fovea. Kehrer (1987) referred to this phenomenon as the central performance drop (CPD). In most studies showing the CPD, task performance has been limited by a backward mask. Morikawa (2000) has argued that in these studies the backward mask was critical to the emergence of the CPD. In three studies we use textures comprising left and right oblique line segments and limit performance by manipulating the orientation variability within the foreground and background textures. Using this method we demonstrate that significant CPDs emerge whether or not there is a backward mask. We conclude that in past studies of the CPD the backward mask functioned primarily as a source of spatial noise and that its temporal relation to the texture display is not critical to the emergence of the CPD.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.258 · 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