MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2027467728 · doi:10.1167/7.9.394

Global Motion: effects of spatial scale and eccentricity

2010· article· en· W2027467728 on OpenAlexaff
R. F. Hess, Craig Aaen‐Stockdale

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Eccentricity (behavior)Scale (ratio)Contrast (vision)Spatial coherenceSpatial ecologyComputer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose. Much is known about global motion processing, the ability to extract the global motion attributes from a collection of noisy local motion signals. Less is known about its dependence on spatial scale and eccentricity because it has been general practice to use large fields of spatially broadband stimuli. Here we first look at the effects of spatial scale and, equipped with this knowledge, explore the dependence on eccentricity. Methods Our stimulus comprised an array of spatially bandpass elements in which some of the elements (signal) move in a coherent direction while the other elements (noise) move in a random direction. We vary the contrast of the individual elements and measure, using a standard 2AFC task, the signal/noise threshold (coherence) for motion direction.Results The detectability of the elements is strongly spatial scale dependent as is the influence of eccentricity, however coherence thresholds are, to a large extent, independent of both spatial scale and eccentricity. Conclusion The effects of spatial scale and eccentricity being strongly contrast dependent reflect the low-level dependencies of local motion processing. At the level where global integration occurs such factors exert only small effects.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.320
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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