MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987269734 · doi:10.1017/s0952523801181125

Bipolar or rectified chromatic detection mechanisms?

2001· article· en· W1987269734 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueVisual Neuroscience · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuminanceChromatic scaleColor visionMasking (illustration)Noise (video)OpticsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionPhysicsMathematicsComputer scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is widely accepted that human color vision is based on two types of cone-opponent mechanism, one differencing L and M cone types (loosely termed "red-green"), and the other differencing S with the L and M cones (loosely termed "blue-yellow"). The traditional view of the early processing of human color vision suggests that each of these cone-opponent mechanisms respond in a bipolar fashion to signal two opponent colors (red vs. green, blue vs. yellow). An alternative possibility is that each cone-opponent response, as well as the luminance response, is rectified, so producing separable signals for each pole (red, green, blue, yellow, light, and dark). In this study, we use psychophysical noise masking to determine whether the rectified model applies to detection by the postreceptoral mechanisms. We measured the contrast-detection thresholds of six test stimuli (red, green, blue, yellow, light, and dark), corresponding to the two poles of each of the three postreceptoral mechanisms. For each test, we determined whether noise presented to the cross pole had the same masking effect as noise presented to the same pole (e.g. comparing masking of luminance increments by luminance decrement noise (cross pole) and luminance increment noise (same pole)). To avoid stimulus cancellation, the test and mask were presented asynchronously in a "sandwich" arrangement (mask-test-mask). For the six test stimuli, we observed that noise masks presented to the cross pole did not raise the detection thresholds of the test, whereas noise presented to the same pole produced a substantial masking. This result suggests that each color signal (red, green, blue, and yellow) and luminance signal, (light and dark) is subserved by a separable mechanism. We suggest that the cone-opponent and luminance mechanisms have similar physiological bases, since a functional separation of the processing of cone increments and cone decrements could underlie both the separation of the luminance system into ON and OFF pathways as well as the splitting of the cone-opponent mechanisms into separable color poles.

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)0.002
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 score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.351
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