Orientation invariance in visual shape perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess directly the orientation-invariance of specific shape representation stages in humans, we examined whether rotation (on the image plane or in depth) modulates the conjunction and linear non-separability effects in a shape visual search task (M. Arguin & D. Saumier, 2000; D. Saumier & M. Arguin, 2003). A series of visual search experiments involving simple 2D or 3D shapes show that these target type effects are entirely resistant to both planar and depth rotations. It was found however, that resistance to depth rotation only occurred when the 3D shapes had a richly textured surface but not when they had a uniform surface, with shading as the only reliable depth cue. The results also indicate that both planar and depth rotations affected performance indexes not concerned with the target type effects (i.e. overall RTs and magnitude of display size and target presence effects). Overall, the present findings suggest that the shape representations subtending the conjunction and linear non-separability effects are invariant across both planar and depth rotations whereas other shape representation stages involved in the task are orientation-specific.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".