MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063837379 · doi:10.1167/9.8.651

Global not local motion direction tuning of curvature encoding mechanisms

2010· article· en· W2063837379 on OpenAlexaff
Elena Gheorghiu, F. A. A. Kingdom, Rickul Varshney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurvatureEncoding (memory)Motion (physics)Computer sciencePhysicsGeometryClassical mechanicsMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim. The shape-frequency and shape-amplitude after-effects, or SFAE and SAAE, are phenomena in which adaptation to a sine-wave-shaped contour causes a shift in respectively the apparent shape-frequency and shape-amplitude of a test contour in a direction away from that of the adapting stimulus. SFAEs and SAAEs are useful for probing curvature encoding in human vision. Here we have investigated motion direction selectivity of curvature-encoding mechanisms as a function of temporal frequency. We have examined whether curvature encoding mechanisms are tuned for: (i) global motion direction, (b) local motion direction, and (c) the local motion of texture-surround inhibition. Methods. SFAEs and SAAEs were measured as a function of temporal frequency for adapting and test contours that were either the same or different in motion direction, the rationale being that if the after-effects were smaller when adaptor and test differed in their motion direction then curvature encoders must be selective for motion direction. Results. SFAEs and SAAEs (i) show selectivity to global motion direction; (ii) increase in magnitude with global temporal frequency; (iii) show no selectivity to local motion direction; (iv) show no tuning for local motion of texture-surround inhibition. Conclusion. Curvature is encoded by mechanisms that are selective to global not local motion direction.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207