MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1989953143 · doi:10.1167/5.8.209

Properties of shape interaction in temporal masking

2010· article· en· W1989953143 on OpenAlexaff
Claudine Habak, F. Wilkinson, H. R. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus onset asynchronyPhysicsStimulus (psychology)Masking (illustration)AmplitudeRADIUSSensory thresholdDetection thresholdOpticsMagnitude (astronomy)Computer scienceBiologyPerceptionAstrophysicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The perceived shape of a pattern (target) can be masked by that of a subsequent pattern (mask). The purpose of the present work is to elucidate the nature of this shape masking. Perceived deformation of a target radial frequency (RF) pattern (radius 1.1deg) was measured when followed by an RF mask (radius 1.6 deg) of high amplitude (16 × detection threshold). The effect reaches a maximum at a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of 80–100 ms, where thresholds are elevated by a factor of 16. Various configurations in which target and mask are separated by this SOA were tested (the mask is termed primary here). Conditions in which a second mask is interleaved in time between the target and primary mask, lead to smaller threshold elevations and reveal that the onset of the mask that appears first in time determines the magnitude of masking. Configurations in which apparent motion is possible between the target and both masks lead to large threshold elevations (factors of 16–20) and demonstrate that both masks contribute to the effect. The magnitude of these effects is much larger than that predicted by a combination of spatial lateral interactions and apparent motion between target and mask. Results suggest that shape, apparent motion, and stimulus onset play an interactive role in masking, and that target shape is not determined at initial onset, but rather, is extrapolated (postdictively) after a window of 80–100ms.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→