MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076354747 · doi:10.1167/10.14.20

Global motion processing in human color vision: A deficit for second-order stimuli

2010· article· en· W2076354747 on OpenAlexafffund
Luis Garcia‐Suarez, Kathy T. Mullen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAchromatic lensChromatic scaleStimulus (psychology)OpticsColor visionPhysicsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionMathematicsComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The investigation of the mechanism of global motion in color vision has been limited because the processing of the first-order chromatic RDK elements, based on low-level linear motion detectors, is impaired. Here we return to this problem by using second-order elements in a global motion stimulus. Second-order RDK elements were circular contrast-modulated (CM) envelopes of a low-pass filtered noise carrier. The stimuli were achromatic or isolated L/M- or S-cone opponent mechanisms. We measured simultaneously detection and motion direction identification thresholds at 100% motion coherence and at different RDK speeds with a 2-AFC paradigm. We found that direction identification thresholds were higher than detection thresholds for both chromatic and achromatic stimuli. The gap between these thresholds was greater for the chromatic than the achromatic stimuli and motion direction thresholds for the chromatic RDK were very high or impossible to obtain. We also measured global motion performance (RDK speed of 4 deg/s) by varying the coherence of limited lifetime RDK stimuli. Global motion thresholds could only be obtained for achromatic stimuli and not for chromatic ones. Within the limits of the present stimulus conditions, we found no global motion processing of second-order chromatic stimuli.

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 score0.011

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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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