MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046414217 · doi:10.1167/13.11.1

Stereopsis and mean luminance

2013· article· en· W2046414217 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandre Reynaud, Jiawei Zhou, Robert F. Hess

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLuminanceContrast (vision)OpticsStereopsisMathematicsVisual fieldArtificial intelligenceComputer visionPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stereopsis is dependent on the average level of illumination, especially if it differs between the two eyes. We manipulate the mean luminance seen by both eyes or the interocular difference in mean luminance by using neutral density (ND) filters placed in front of both eyes or just one eye respectively. Stereo acuity was measured using a one temporal interval forced choice task for detecting the sign of a Gaussian depth perturbation in a noise field with a comparable spectrum to that found in natural images. We show that the effect of changing mean luminance is spatial scale independent within the range of 0.5 to 4 cpd, certainly not larger at higher spatial scales. To investigate its origin we manipulate two factors, the temporal synchrony between the two eyes and the interocular contrast. Both factors are implicated in the loss of stereo performance when the mean luminance is different between the eyes, suggesting an underlying explanation in terms of temporal low-pass filtering resulting in the combination of a luminance-dependent temporal delay and a luminance-dependent change in contrast gain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations55
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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