MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2016472862 · doi:10.1167/9.8.935

Is segmentation from motion parallax influenced by perceived depth?

2010· article· en· W2016472862 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Yoonessi, Curtis L. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParallaxObserver (physics)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceOrientation (vector space)Oblique caseSegmentationMotion perceptionMathematicsMotion (physics)PhysicsComputer scienceGeometryGeodesyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A powerful cue for parsing occlusion boundaries arises from relative image motion produced by an observer's self-motion (“motion parallax”), which may also utilize vestibular cues. In this situation, segmentation of adjacent surfaces is intimately associated with their perceived difference in depth. Here we investigate to what extent a depth difference generated from self-motion might aid in segmentation performance. Stimuli appeared within a circular aperature containing a near-horizontal boundary between half-discs that were filled with 1/f (fractal) noise textures. On each trial the observer freely executed lateral head movements, which were measured using a 6-DOF electromagnetic tracking system. The textures' movements were linked to the head movement with no perceptible lag. Three relative motion conditions were compared: the two halves could move in opposite directions, in the same direction at different speeds, in sync with the head movement, or they could both move against the head movement (simulating a pair of surfaces on opposite sides of, farther than, or closer to the fixation point, respectively). On each trial the observer reported whether the moving boundary was slightly oriented left- or right-oblique. A method of constant stimuli was used to measure a boundary orientation threshold. To examine the effect of self-motion, using comparable texture motions, we kept the head fixed with the image regions moving according to trajectories recorded during previous head-moving trials. Orientation thresholds were smaller when the textures were moving oppositely than when moving in the same direction, and similar for the same-direction cases. Overall there was little or no difference in segmentation performance between head-free and head-fixed conditions, even though observers often reported seeing a depth difference. These results suggest that segmentation is a low level mechanism that preceeds depth perception, and that it may not benefit from vestibular input.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→