Spatiotemporal templates for detecting 1st- and 2nd-order orientation- and luminance-defined targets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the classification image technique, the present experiments revealed several characteristics of human observers' spatiotemporal templates for the detection of texture-defined targets. The stimulus consisted of a five frame (each frame: 80 ms) movie of a five by five spatial array of elements (whole size: 1.6 x 1.6 deg). The target was defined by the first-and the second-order characteristics of orientation- and luminance-defined textures and observers were required to respond whether a target or non-target was presented on each trial. When a target signal was presented across all five frames, human observers typically relied on the most reasonable cues in all five frames for detecting targets. In other words, they used the first-order cue for detecting the first-order target and used the second-order cue for detecting the second-order target. When the target signal was presented just during the third temporal frame, the temporal profile of the observers' spatiotemporal templates changed, so that only information presented near the third temporal frame was used. In addition, the type of spatial cue utilized also changed, so that for first-order target detection observers used second-order cues as well as first-order cues. This strategy was sensible, because both first- and second-order cues were available in this condition. There also was a trend toward increasing the extent of spatial information used when the temporal information was restricted, perhaps indicating that there is a space-time tradeoff in the information that can be used in these tasks.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it