MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2033134454 · doi:10.1167/14.15.43

Dichoptic and binocular detection of hue and saturation differences: the effect of luminance contrast

2014· article· en· W2033134454 on OpenAlexaff
B. J. Jennings, F. A. A. Kingdom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuminanceHueContrast (vision)Binocular visionChromatic scaleOpticsMathematicsPsychologyComputer visionPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between-eye difference thresholds (BEDTs) were measured for hue and saturation using dichoptically superimposed coloured patches. BEDTs were measured at isoluminance and as a function of added binocular (i.e. same in both eyes) luminance contrast, both increments and decrements. Increasing the binocular luminance contrast increased BEDTs for both hue and saturation. A control experiment showed that the BEDTs were only elevated when the binocular luminance contrast was spatially coextensive within the colour-defined patches. When measured under full binocular viewing conditions however, i.e. when each member of the dichoptic pair was presented at a separate screen location and to both eyes, both hue and chromatic contrast difference thresholds were unaffected by the addition of binocular luminance contrast. These results are hard to explain by the simple dilution of the colour signals by luminance contrast, as thresholds were only elevated in the dichoptic viewing conditions. A model of BEDTs that includes an interocular suppression component whose gain is inversely proportional to the amount of binocular luminance contrast was found to give a good account of the data.

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)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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