MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028147800 · doi:10.1167/9.8.661

Repulsion of perceived direction in superimposed surfaces

2010· article· en· W2028147800 on OpenAlexaff
Carolyn J. Perry, Mazyar Fallah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAperture (computer memory)Fixation (population genetics)GratingSurface (topology)OpticsMotion (physics)PhysicsVisual fieldComputer scienceComputer visionGeometryMathematicsChemistryAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under the proper conditions, two moving gratings that are superimposed are perceived as a plaid moving in the vector average of the 2 grating directions. Much research has been done both psychophysically and through neuronal recordings to understand the process of integrating the two gratings into a single plaid object. A field of dots (random dot kinetograms) that moves coherently is perceived as a surface. When two dot fields are superimposed upon each other, moving in different directions, no such integration occurs. Instead, the dots are segmented into two distinct objects. We investigated whether the perceived directions of motion of two superimposed surfaces would still be affected by the process of direction integration. Subjects fixated a central cross while an aperture containing 2 surfaces moving in different directions appeared in the lower right or lower left visual fields. After 1000 ms, the surfaces and fixation cross were removed while a white circular outline of the aperture appeared. Subjects used a mouse to click on the perceived directions of motion for each of the 2 surfaces. We expected to find that the difference in the perceived directions would be less than the actual difference between the directions, as this would be consistent with (weak) integration. Surprisingly, we found the opposite effect. The difference in perceived directions was significantly larger than the difference in actual directions. These results suggest that unlike the integration of moving gratings into a plaid, superimposed surfaces comprised of random dot kinetograms are repulsed. The key factor is that the RDKs are automatically segmented into two objects providing a substrate for competitive interactions. Thus, the repulsion of perceived direction is likely due to competitive circuits previously identified for attentional modulation in area MT.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Bench 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 VisionSame topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207