Collinear facilitation: effects of additive and multiplicative visual noise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose 1) To assess whether collinear facilitation is limited to absolute detection threshold, we investigated the influence of additive 2-D visual noise. 2) to assess whether collinear facilitation is limited to 1st order processing pathways, we assessed whether it occurs for 2nd order stimuli. Methods. In a standard collinear facilitation paradigm, we used a standard 2 AFC procedure to measure the detectability of Gabor stimuli to which visual noise was either added or multiplied. Results 1) we found that collinear facilitation is limited to at or around absolute threshold, not being present for stimuli with significant amounts of added visual noise, 2) 2nd order stimuli can show collinear facilitation, but of a reduced magnitude, and 3) we found no crossed facilitation from 1st to 2nd order stimuli or visa versa. Conclusion. Collinear facilitation is not ubiquitous throughout the contrast range and does occur for some 2nd order stimuli. Neither result is consistent with it having a pivotal role in contour integration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".