MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050794832 · doi:10.1167/11.8.7

Discrimination and identification of periodic motion trajectories

2011· article· en· W2050794832 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles C.-F. Or, M. Thabet, F. Wilkinson, Hugh R. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTrajectoryRange (aeronautics)Motion (physics)Periodic functionIdentification (biology)PhysicsFunction (biology)AcousticsComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysisEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humans are extremely sensitive to radial deformations of static circular contours (F. Wilkinson, H. R. Wilson, & C. Habak, 1998). Here, we investigate detection and identification of periodic motion trajectories defined by these radial frequency (RF) patterns over a range of radial frequencies of 2-5 cycles. We showed that the average detection thresholds for RF trajectories range from 1 to 4 min of arc and performance improves as a power-law function of radial frequency. RF trajectories are also detected for a range of speeds. We also showed that spatiotemporal global processing is involved in trajectory detection, as improvement in detection performance with increasing radial deformation displayed cannot be accounted for by local probability summation. Finally, identification of RF trajectories is possible over this RF range. Overall thresholds are about 6 times higher than previously reported for static stimuli. These novel stimuli should be a useful tool to investigate motion trajectory learning and discrimination in humans and other primates.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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