Interaction of spatial and temporal factors in psychophysical estimates of surround suppression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent psychophysical work has shown that performance on a direction discrimination task decreases with increasing stimulus size, provided the stimulus is high in contrast. This psychophysical surround suppression has been linked to the inhibitory spatial surrounds that have been observed throughout the primate visual system. In this work we have examined a temporal factor that may also contribute to psychophysical surround suppression. Consistent with previous work, we found that psychophysical surround suppression is strongest when a high-contrast motion stimulus is presented very briefly so that the appearance of the stimulus coincided with its motion. However, when a brief delay was inserted between the stimulus onset and the onset of motion, the counterintuitive effects of stimulus size disappeared. The effect of the motion onset asynchrony (MOA) was strongest when the stationary stimulus immediately preceded the stimulus motion and when stimulus orientation during the MOA was very similar to that during the motion presentation. We conclude that psychophysical surround suppression is partially linked to the temporal structure of the stimulus, more precisely to a masking effect caused by sudden stimulus onsets (and to a smaller degree stimulus offsets).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".