MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004491675 · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2013.05.003

Mechanisms underlying global stereopsis in fovea and periphery

2013· article· en· W2004491675 on OpenAlexafffund
Nirel Witz, Robert F. Hess

Bibliographic record

VenueVision Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStereopsisNeuroscienceOptometryOpticsPsychologyPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To better understand the pooling properties underlying global stereopsis we examined the relationship between carrier luminance spatial frequency and modulator disparity spatial frequency. Thresholds for detecting global sinusoidal disparity corrugations of spatially band-pass noise were measured as a function of modulator disparity spatial frequency for both centrally and peripherally located stimuli using a standard 2-IFC task. We found a characteristic relationship that depended on modulator disparity spatial frequency. At high modulator disparity spatial frequencies (>1c/d), there is an optimal ratio of around 2.6, whereas at low modulator disparity spatial frequencies, there is an optimal absolute carrier luminance spatial frequency (i.e., 3c/d). In the periphery, vision is restricted to modulator disparity spatial frequencies below 1c/d and, as a consequence, following the above rule, there is an optimum absolute carrier luminance spatial frequency that reduces in spatial frequency with increasing eccentricity. This finding is consistent with there being more than one channel processing global stereo that is subsequently confirmed using a 2×2 AFC detection/discrimination paradigm. Furthermore, because of the different carrier/modulator relationships in central and peripheral vision, peripheral global stereo cannot be simply related to central global stereo by a scaling factor and thus cannot be simply due to cortical magnification, as originally thought.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.145 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVision ResearchSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207