Blobs versus bars: Psychophysical evidence supports two types of orientation response in human color vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The classic hypothesis of Livingstone and Hubel (1984, 1987) proposed two types of color pathways in primate visual cortex based on recordings from single cells: a segregated, modular pathway that signals color but provides little information about shape or form and a second pathway that signals color differences and so defines forms without the need to specify their colors. A major problem has been to reconcile this neurophysiological hypothesis with the behavioral data. A wealth of psychophysical studies has demonstrated that color vision has orientation-tuned responses and little impairment on form related tasks, but these have not revealed any direct evidence for nonoriented mechanisms. Here we use a psychophysical method of subthreshold summation across orthogonal orientations for isoluminant red-green gratings in monocular and dichoptic viewing conditions to differentiate between nonoriented and orientation-tuned responses to color contrast. We reveal nonoriented color responses at low spatial frequencies (0.25-0.375 c/deg) under monocular conditions changing to orientation-tuned responses at higher spatial frequencies (1.5 c/deg) and under binocular conditions. We suggest that two distinct pathways coexist in color vision at the behavioral level, revealed at different spatial scales: one is isotropic, monocular, and best equipped for the representation of surface color, and the other is orientation-tuned, binocular, and selective for shape and form. This advances our understanding of the organization of the neural pathways involved in human color vision and provides a strong link between neurophysiological and behavioral 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".