MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008830386 · doi:10.1167/10.7.1194

Contribution of motion parallax to depth ordering, depth magnitude and segmentation

2010· article· en· W2008830386 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Yoonessi, C. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParallaxSegmentationMagnitude (astronomy)Artificial intelligenceDepth perceptionComputer visionTwo-alternative forced choiceOrientation (vector space)Motion perceptionPsychophysicsMathematicsGeologyOpticsComputer scienceCommunicationGeodesyPerceptionPhysicsMotion (physics)PsychologyGeometryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motion parallax, i.e. differential retinal image motion resulting from movement of the observer, provides an important visual cue to segmentation and depth perception. Previously we examined its role in segmentation (VSS 2009), and here we additionally explore its contribution to depth perception. Subjects performed lateral head translation while an electromagnetic tracker recorded head position. Stimuli consisted of random dots on a black background, whose horizontal displacements were synchronized proportionately to head motion by a scale factor (gain), and were modulated using square or sinewave envelopes to generate shearing motion. Subjects performed three tasks: depth ordering, depth magnitude and segmentation. In depth ordering they performed a 2AFC task, reporting whether the half-cycle above vs below the centre of the screen appeared nearer. Depth magnitude estimates were obtained by matching the perceived depth to that of a texture-mapped 3d surface of similar shape which was rendered in a perspective view. Segmentation performance was assessed by measuring discrimination thresholds for envelope orientation. This task included two conditions: one in which stimuli were synched to the head motion and the other in which previously recorded motions of the stimuli were “played-back”. For square wave modulation, good depth ordering performance was obtained only at low gain values; however sinewave modulation yielded unambiguous depth across a broader range of gains. In the depth magnitude task, subjects matched proportionately greater depths for larger gain values. In the segmentation task, orientation discrimination showed surprisingly similar thresholds for head motion and playback. These results suggest that the ecological range of depths in which motion parallax gives good segmentation is very wide, whereas for good depth perception it is quite limited. The dependence of depth ordering on modulation waveform suggests that motion parallax is more useful for depth differences within one object than between occluding objects.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.357
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designBench or experimental
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