MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042723755 · doi:10.1167/12.9.600

Orientation tuning in color vision measured in the absence of contrast gain control

2012· article· en· W2042723755 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrared Target Detection Methodologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAchromatic lensOpticsOrientation (vector space)Contrast (vision)Subthreshold conductionSpatial frequencyMasking (illustration)SummationGratingPhysicsColor visionMathematicsSine waveArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePsychologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is thought that measuring response tuning using sinewave masking confounds the effects of the within channel response with the more broadly tuned cross-channel gain controls activated by the use of high contrast mask stimuli (Cass et al., JOV 9(12), 2009; Meese & Holmes, JOV 10(12), 2010). Here we use a method of subthreshold summation to measure the orientation tuning of color vision at very low contrasts, without the influence of contrast gain controls. Methods: Stimuli were oriented sine‐wave gratings (sf = 1.5 cpd) in a circular patch (10 degs) with rasied cosine edges. Gratings were presented alone or as overlaid pairs to form a plaid. The orientation difference between the two gratings was varied from 0 to 90 degs. For each plaid angle, psychometric functions were obtained for the detection of each grating and the "plaid", and a summation ratio was determined. Orientation tuning was measured for isoluminant red-green and achromatic stimuli presented monocularly. Results: Summation ratios as a function of orientation difference were fitted with Gaussian functions with an offset parameter (~1.3 dB) to take into account probability summation. At this spatial frequency, we find orientation-tuned responses for color vision that are similar to those obtained for achromatic vision with a bandwidth (HWHH) of 12.0 ± 3.8 degs for color and 9.0 ± 2.4 degs for achromatic stimuli (average of three subjects). Conclusion: Subthreshold summation reveals orientation tuning in color vision at mid spatial frequencies, whereas masking reveals very broad or isotropic effects (Medina & Mullen, JOV 9(3), 2009). This difference is likely due to the influence of contrast gain control in the masking paradigm. Orientation tuning for color contrast that matches that for achromatic contrast supports a primary role for color vision in shape perception. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.281 · 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