MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023883520 · doi:10.1117/12.542633

Detection of motion-defined form under simulated night vision conditions

2004· article· en· W2023883520 on OpenAlexaff
Todd Macuda, Robert S. Allison, Paul Thomas, Gregory Craig, Sion Jennings

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrared Target Detection Methodologies
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCamouflagePerceptionNoise (video)Motion (physics)Stimulus (psychology)Image noiseImage (mathematics)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of Night Vision Goggle-produced noise on the perception of motion-defined form was investigated using synthetic imagery and standard psychophysical procedures. Synthetic image sequences incorporating synthetic noise were generated using a software model developed by our research group. This model is based on the physical properties of the Aviator Night Vision Imaging System (ANVIS-9) image intensification tube. The image sequences either depicted a target that moved at a different speed than the background, or only depicted the background. For each trial, subjects were shown a pair of image sequences and required to indicate which sequence contained the target stimulus. We tested subjects at a series of target speeds at several realistic noise levels resulting from varying simulated illumination. The results showed that subjects had increased difficulty detecting the target with increased noise levels, particularly at slower target speeds. This study suggests that the capacity to detect motion-defined form is degraded at low levels of illumination. Our findings are consistent with anecdotal reports of impaired motion perception in NVGs. Perception of motion-defined form is important in operational tasks such as search and rescue and camouflage breaking. These degradations in performance should be considered in operational planning.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicInfrared Target Detection MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207