Peripheral chromatic sensitivity for rectified stimuli in each cone-opponent system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: To determine the presence of asymmetries in cone contrast sensitivity between the two poles of each of the L/M and S/L+M cone opponent systems across the human visual field. Methods: We used chromatic rectified stimuli modulated in the following directions in cone contrast space: an isoluminant +L−M cardinal direction (red), an isoluminant +M−L direction (green), +S (blue) and −S (yellow). The stimulus was a spatial and temporal Gaussian ,gblob,h on a gray background (49.7 cd/m2, (x, y) = (0.275, 0.293)) with a fixed spatial sigma of 0.5 deg in the horizontal meridian, and a sigma in the vertical meridian that varied from 0.5 to 1.8 deg with eccentricity, determined by the magnification factor in V1. (Temporal sigma = 0.125 sec). Stimuli were presented from 0 to 20 deg in the nasal visual field in 5 deg steps. Cone contrast thresholds were measured using a standard 2AFC staircase procedure. Results: The results show a much steeper decline in sensitivity of the L/M compared to the S-cone opponent system. The L/M system shows an asymmetry with ,green,h cone contrast sensitivity decreasing more than the ,gred,h at eccentricities over 10 deg. Little or no asymmetry is found in the S-cone opponent system. Conclusions: Our results showing the asymmetry of cone contrast sensitivity in the L/M cone opponent system support those of Stromeyer et al., Vis. Res., 1992 and extend them to a wider range of conditions. They add to other evidence showing a rectification in the L/M cone opponent system. The lack of asymmetry found in the S-cone opponent system indicates that the underlying cause of the asymmetry is unique to the L/M cone opponent system.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".