MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023525327 · doi:10.1167/14.7.2

Contour inflections are adaptable features

2014· article· en· W2023525327 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Bell, Sinthujaa Sampasivam, David P. McGovern, Andrew Isaac Meso, F. A. A. Kingdom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflection pointCoding (social sciences)InflectionArtificial intelligenceCurvatureComputer scienceComputer visionObject (grammar)Pattern recognition (psychology)GeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An object's shape is a strong cue for visual recognition. Most models of shape coding emphasize the role of oriented lines and curves for coding an object's shape. Yet inflection points, which occur at the junction of two oppositely signed curves, are ubiquitous features in natural scenes and carry important information about the shape of an object. Using a visual aftereffect in which the perceived shape of a contour is changed following prolonged viewing of a slightly different-shaped contour, we demonstrate a specific aftereffect for a contour inflection. Control conditions show that this aftereffect cannot be explained by adaptation to either the component curves or to the local orientation at the point of inflection. Further, we show that the aftereffect transfers weakly to a compound curve without an inflection, ruling out a general compound curvature detector as an explanation of our findings. We assume however that there are adaptable mechanisms for coding other specific forms of compound curves. Taken together, our findings provide evidence that the human visual system contains specific mechanisms for coding contour inflections, further highlighting their role in shape and object coding.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 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

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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