Spatial Coherence Does Not Affect Contrast Discrimination for Multiple Gabor Stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gestalt grouping rules imply a process or mechanism for grouping together local features of an object into a perceptual whole. Several psychophysical experiments have been interpreted as evidence for constrained interactions between nearby spatial filter elements and this has led to the hypothesis that element linking might be mediated by these interactions. A common tacit assumption is that these interactions result in response modulation which disturbs a local contrast code. We addressed this possibility by performing contrast discrimination experiments using two-dimensional arrays of multiple Gabor patches arranged either (i) vertically, (ii) in circles (coherent conditions), or (iii) randomly (incoherent condition), as well as for a single Gabor patch. In each condition, contrast increments were applied to either the entire test stimulus (experiment 1) or a single patch whose position was cued (experiment 2). In experiment 3, the texture stimuli were reduced to a single contour by displaying only the central vertical strip. Performance was better for the multiple-patch conditions than for the single-patch condition, but whether the multiple-patch stimulus was coherent or not had no systematic effect on the results in any of the experiments. We conclude that constrained local interactions do not interfere with a local contrast code for our suprathreshold stimuli, suggesting that, in general, this is not the way in which element linking is achieved. The possibility that interactions are involved in enhancing the detectability of contour elements at threshold remains unchallenged by our experiments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".