MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034052021 · doi:10.1167/12.4.4

Amblyopic deficits in processing structure-from-motion

2012· article· en· W2034052021 on OpenAlexafffund
J. S. Husk, Reza Farivar, Robert F. Hess

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsExtrastriate cortexDorsumPsychologyContrast (vision)Task (project management)Cognitive psychologyVisual cortexNeuroscienceComputer scienceComputer visionMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amblyopic observers exhibit a range of low- and high-level cortical deficits, and there is strong evidence that the extrastriate cortex is selectively affected for signal/noise tasks but not for simple integration tasks. We tested amblyopic and control observers on a structure-from-motion (SFM) task involving signal integration to gauge whether extrastriate processing is compromised at a level where dorsal and ventral information is combined. SFM tasks require integration of local elements to perceive the global structure using motion-defined depth cues. Observers were monocularly presented with a 2-IFC shape discrimination task and asked to indicate whether two consecutive SFM stimuli represented the same or different depth-defined shapes. Amblyopic observers had higher depth thresholds than control observers, even after controlling for low-level differences in contrast thresholds across eyes and observers. Combined with the presence of the deficit in both the amblyopic and fellow-fixing eyes, this suggests a high-level locus for the SFM deficit.

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 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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.357
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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207