MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011038896 · doi:10.1167/12.1.9

The mask-onset delay paradigm and the availability of central and peripheral visual information during scene viewing

2012· article· en· W2011038896 on OpenAlexafffund
Mackenzie G. Glaholt, Keith Rayner, Eyal M. Reingold

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPeripheral visionFixation (population genetics)Visual searchVisual fieldVisual maskingContrast (vision)Computer visionEye movementComputer scienceMasking (illustration)PeripheralPsychologyArtificial intelligenceVisual perceptionNeurosciencePerceptionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We employed a variant of the mask-onset delay paradigm in order to limit the availability of visual information in central and peripheral vision within individual fixations during scene viewing. Subjects viewed full-color scene photos with instructions to search for a target object (Experiment 1) or to study them for a later memory test (Experiment 2). After a fixed interval following the onset of each eye fixation (50-100 ms), the scene was scrambled either in the central visual field or over the entire display. The intact scene was presented when the subject made an eye movement. Our results reconcile different sets of findings from prior research regarding the masking of central and peripheral visual information at different intervals following fixation onset. In particular, we found that when the entire display was scrambled, both search and memory performance were impaired even at relatively long mask-onset intervals. In contrast, when central vision was scrambled, there were subtle impairments that depended on the viewing task. In the 50-ms mask-onset interval, subjects were selectively impaired at identifying, but not in locating, the search target (Experiment 1), while memory performance (Experiment 2) was unaffected in this condition, and hence, the reliance on central and peripheral visual information depends partly on the viewing task.

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)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207