The magnitude of center-surround facilitation in the discrimination of amplitude spectrum is dependent on the amplitude of the surround
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies explored the sensitivity of human perception to natural images, in particular the sensitivity of the visual system to discriminate changes in the amplitude spectrum slope. Previous slope discrimination experiments were carried out with stimuli presented either in the fovea or the parafovea/periphery and show that both yield poor discrimination at very steep or relatively shallow slopes. We verified if the well-known center-surround spatial interactions that operate early on in the visual processing stream influence the perception of real-world images. The results show that amplitude slope discrimination is greatly reduced (i.e., flat) when the stimulus is viewed in isolation. However, when a 2° target is placed within a surround containing an amplitude spectrum slope of 1 or 1.3, we see significant facilitation in detecting variations in the slope of the amplitude spectrum, particularly when the target contains an amplitude spectrum slope of 1 and 1.3. The results suggest that our visual system is sensitive to contextual interactions for stimuli that have the characteristics of natural images.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".