MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017061588 · doi:10.1167/10.7.857

Effective tactile noise can decrease luminance modulated thresholds

2010· article· en· W2017061588 on OpenAlexaff
J. E. Lugo, R. Doti, Jocelyn Faubert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrossmodalMultisensory integrationNoise (video)PerceptionFacilitationContext (archaeology)Sensory systemSIGNAL (programming language)Sensitivity (control systems)Stochastic resonanceComputer scienceNeuroscienceCommunicationVisual perceptionPsychologyArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The multisensory FULCRUM principle describes a ubiquitous phenomenon in humans [1,2]. This principle can be interpreted within an energy and frequency model of multisensory neurons' spontaneous activity. In this context, the sensitivity transitions represent the change from spontaneous activity to a firing activity in multisensory neurons. Initially the energy and frequency content of the multisensory neurons' activity (supplied by a weak signal) is not enough to be detected but when the facilitation signal (for example auditory noise or another deterministic signal) enters the brain, it generates a general activation among multisensory neurons of different regions, modifying their original activity. The result is an integrated activation that promotes sensitivity transitions and the signals are then perceived. For instance, by using psychophysical techniques we demonstrate that auditory or tactile noise can enhance the sensitivity of visual system responses to weak signals. Specifically, we show that the effective tactile noise significantly decreased luminance modulated visual thresholds. Because this multisensory facilitation process appears universal and a fundamental property of sensory/perceptual systems, we will call it the multisensory FULCRUM principle. A fulcrum is one that supplies capability for action and we believe that this best describes the fundamental principle at work in these multisensory interactions. [1] Lugo E, Doti R, Faubert J (2008) Ubiquitous Crossmodal Stochastic Resonance in Humans: Auditory Noise Noise Facilitates Tactile, Visual and Proprioceptive Sensations. PLoS ONE 3(8): e2860. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002860 [2] Lugo J E, Doti R, Wittich W, Faubert J (2008) Multisensory Integration: Central processing modifies perypheral systems. Psychological Science 19 (10): 989-999.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 teacher head, 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 VisionSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207