MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1991098710 · doi:10.1167/12.9.107

Two routes to suppression of signals in color vision

2012· article· en· W1991098710 on OpenAlexaff
Kathy T. Mullen, M. Gheiratmand, José M. Medina, Yeon Jin Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAchromatic lensChromatic scaleLuminanceContrast (vision)Masking (illustration)Binocular visionChromaticityMonocularOrientation (vector space)Computer visionPsychophysicsOpticsArtificial intelligenceOcular dominanceBinocular rivalryPsychologyComputer sciencePhysicsMathematicsVisual cortexVisual perceptionNeuroscienceArtPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are at least two routes to psychophysical cross-orientation suppression prior to binocular summation of the signal in achromatic vision: (1) a monoptic, non-adaptable sub-cortical pathway and (2) a dichoptic, adaptable interocular pathway (Baker et al., Neuroscience, 146, 2007). Here we test psychophysically whether cross orientation masking (XOM) in color vision (Medina & Mullen, JOV 9(3), 2009) has gain-control pathways that are separable from achromatic responses or whether chromatic and achromatic responses interact. Methods: Detection threshold vs contrast (TvC) masking functions were measured for red-green isoluminant, horizontal Gabor targets overlaid with achromatic vertical Gabor masks. We tested for XOM under a range of spatiotemporal conditions (0.375, 0.75 & 1.5 cpd; 2 & 8 Hz), and with the chromatic test and achromatic mask presented under monoptic, dichoptic, and binocular viewing conditions. Results: We find that: (1) there is little or no cross orientation masking of color by achromatic contrast under monoptic or binocular conditions at any of the spatio-temporal frequencies tested, although some facilitation may occur; (2) there is significant dichoptic XOM, when mask and test are present to different eyes, which increases with mask contrast; (3) the dichoptic XOM is greater at low temporal frequencies (2 Hz) than high (8Hz). Conclusion: The significant inter-ocular cross orientation suppression of color by luminance contrast indicates that gain control pools at this level are unselective for chromaticity. Our results support a two-stage contrast normalization model with both a monocular and a dichoptic stage prior to binocular summation: the within eye, monocular stage of suppression is selective for color contrast whereas the inter-ocular second stage, revealed under dichoptic conditions, has color-achromatic interactions. This differential effect provides evidence for at least two distinct sites for suppressive gain control in color vision. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012

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)0.001
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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