MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2052224379 · doi:10.1167/8.6.582

Grouping of shape by perceptual closure: Effects of spatial proximity and collinearity

2010· article· en· W2052224379 on OpenAlexaff
Bat Sheva Hadad, Ruth Kimchi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollinearityClosure (psychology)Spatial relationPerceptionMatching (statistics)MathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Biological systemComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeometryPsychologyBiologyStatisticsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time course of grouping of shape by perceptual closure as a function of spatial proximity and collinearity between the closure-inducing fragments was examined in three experiments using primed-matching. When only closure was available, early priming of the global shape was observed for spatially close fragments, but not for spatially distant fragments. When closure and collinearity were available, the global shape of both spatially close and spatially distant fragments was primed at brief exposures. These results indicate that spatial proximity is critical for the rapid grouping of shape by perceptual closure in the absence of collinearity, but collinearity facilitates the rapid grouping of shape when the closure-inducing line segments are spatially distant. These findings suggest a rapid computation of collinearity between closure-inducing line segments that is insensitive to spatial proximity within a certain range. This fast-occurring mechanism enables efficient image descriptions and apparently is crucial for a fast, reliable interpretation of the visual scene. The results also showed, however, that stable priming effects of the global shape over time were observed only when the closure-inducing fragments were collinear and spatially close, suggesting that maintaining a stable representation of shape beyond the first stages of visual processing depends both on spatial proximity and collinearity between the closure-inducing fragments.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.311
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→