MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998316131 · doi:10.1167/5.8.193

Cues that determine the perceptual upright: Visual influences are dominated by high spatial frequencies

2010· article· en· W1998316131 on OpenAlexaff
R. T. Dyde, Michael Jenkin, Laurence R. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrientation (vector space)PerceptionComputer visionArtificial intelligenceVisual perceptionPsychologyCommunicationPhysicsMathematicsComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRO: The perceived direction of upright - the preferred orientation for polarized objects to be recognized - depends on the relative orientations of the visual background, the body and gravity. The perceptual upright (PU) is distinct from the subjective visual vertical (SVV) which is dominated by the direction of gravity and which predicts the perceived effects of gravity on objects and the observer. The PU is highly sensitive to the orientation of the visual background: that is the preferred orientation for object recognition is critically influenced by the ambient visual environment. Which spatial frequency range carries the information that most influences the PU? METHOD: The PU is measured from the perceived identity of the character p/d. The orientations where one interpretation (p) changes to the other (d), are bisected to indicate the PU. Subjects were tested upright and supine whilst viewing the character against a highly polarized photograph of a natural scene displayed on a laptop computer whose screen was masked to a 42° circle viewed at 25 cms through a tube that obscured all peripheral vision. The influence of a tilted background picture was examined as a series of circular Gaussian blurs were applied to it at 2, 4, 8, 16 and 250 pixel widths. RESULTS: The influence of the visual background on the PU was initially about equal to that of gravity and about half that of the body. When we blurred the background image, the influence of the visual background on the PU systematically decreased at a rate independent of body posture, though the magnitude of effect remained reliably higher for supine observers. DISCUSSION: The systematic decrease of the influence of the visual environment as it is blurred suggests an important role for higher spatial frequencies and the detail they convey rather than the overall structure of the scene in providing cues that determine the perceptual upright.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 VisionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207